Skip to main content
Glama

Alienvault Otx

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Scan Dependency

scan_dependency
Read-onlyIdempotent

Composite "should I add this npm package to my project" check in ONE call — fans out across deps.dev (license + advisories + version history) and bundlephobia (gzipped/minified bundle size, dependency count, ESM/tree-shake support). Use whenever an agent asks "is X safe / popular / small" or "what does adding lodash cost me". Returns a summary block (is_latest, license, published_at, advisory_count, bundle_kb_min, bundle_kb_gz, dependency_count, has_esm, tree_shakeable), per-advisory detail, links, and a list of recent alternative versions. NPM ecosystem only in v1; PyPI / Maven / Cargo / Go fall under deps.dev:version directly. Partial failures degrade gracefully — bundlephobia's first measurement on a new version can take 5-30s; sources_failed will list it if it times out, the rest still returns.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
packageYesnpm package name. Scoped packages (e.g. "@types/node") are accepted.
versionNoSpecific version to check (e.g., "18.3.1"). Defaults to the latest published version when omitted.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false) are present, but the description adds substantial context: the composite fan-out architecture, partial failure handling (sources_failed list), and timing behavior (5-30s delay on first bundlephobia measurement). No contradictions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the main purpose and uses multiple sentences, each earning its place (use cases, ecosystem scope, failure behavior, timing). It is slightly long but appropriately detailed for a complex tool; no filler or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite having no output schema, the description lists the exact fields returned (summary block fields, per-advisory, links, alternative versions). It covers parameter usage, failure modes, and ecosystem limitations, making it a complete and self-contained description for the agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by explaining the composite check and output fields, but does not provide additional syntactic constraints beyond the schema. It is slightly above baseline by offering concrete examples and context for parameter usage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's composite nature (deps.dev + bundlephobia), specific resources (npm packages), and explicit use cases ('is X safe / popular / small' and 'what does adding lodash cost me'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on npm ecosystem and composite checks, while no sibling tool shares this exact purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly tells when to use ('whenever an agent asks...') and when not to ('NPM ecosystem only in v1; PyPI / Maven / Cargo / Go fall under deps.dev:version directly'). It also provides timing caveats for bundlephobia and notes graceful degradation, giving clear guidance on expectations.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Alienvault Otx toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation1/5

Several tools are nearly indistinguishable, particularly ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded, plus a cluster of overlapping Polymarket tools. The three OTX-specific tools are buried among 31 unrelated utilities, making correct selection highly error-prone.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names are consistently snake_case and mostly readable, but the pattern is mixed: imperative verbs like ask_, get_, lookup_, and validate_ coexist with noun-first names like entity_profile, polymarket_edges, and recent_alerts. It is not chaotic, but the style is not predictable enough for a 5.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is excessive for a server purportedly about Alienvault OTX, with only 3 tools actually serving that domain. The bulk are unrelated data-retrieval, prediction-market, memory, and utility tools, making the set feel unfocused and overstuffed.

Completeness1/5

For a server named Alienvault OTX, the surface is severely incomplete: search_pulses, get_pulse, and lookup_indicator cover only basic threat-intel lookup. There is no coverage of OTX events, malware details, passive DNS, indicator enrichment, or OTX subscription workflows, while most of the 34 tools address entirely different domains.

Resources