Skip to main content
Glama

Arcgis Allegheny

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.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations: explains composite fan-out, partial failure degradation, potential 5-30s delay on first bundlephobia measurement, and the sources_failed field. No contradictions with the readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, or destructiveHint annotations.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is long but dense, with no wasted sentences. It front-loads the core purpose, then covers usage, return fields, and failure modes in a structured flow. Every clause adds value, making the length appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by explicitly listing return fields and summary block contents. It covers prerequisites, ecosystem scope, latency caveats, and fallback behavior. This is a complete picture for an agent to decide when and how to invoke the tool.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that 'package' is an npm package name and 'version' defaults to latest, but these details are already in the schema. It adds no substantially new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 composite purpose: a one-call check for whether to add an npm package, with specific sources (deps.dev, bundlephobia) and output fields. It distinguishes itself from any sibling tool by focusing on npm dependency vetting.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'Use whenever an agent asks "is X safe / popular / small" or "what does adding lodash cost me"'. It also clearly delineates non-NPM ecosystem handling, directing users to deps.dev:version directly for PyPI/Maven/Cargo/Go, which serves as an alternative pathway.

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

All Arcgis Allegheny 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are nearly identical, and several Polymarket analysis tools (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, bet_research) blur together. The three ArcGIS tools are distinct, but they are drowned out by a large set of data-query and prediction-market tools with unclear boundaries.

Naming Consistency3/5

All tool names use snake_case, but the verb/noun pattern is mixed: some are command-style (query_layer, validate_claim), some are noun phrases (layer_info, entity_profile), and others are bare verbs (remember, forget). The naming is readable but not consistently patterned.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is too many for a server named 'Arcgis Allegheny', especially since only three tools (search_datasets, layer_info, query_layer) relate to ArcGIS at all. The bulk of the tools address unrelated domains like Pipeworx data lookups and Polymarket betting, making the count excessive for the apparent purpose.

Completeness1/5

For a server focused on ArcGIS Allegheny County data, the surface is severely incomplete: only three read-only tools (search_datasets, layer_info, query_layer) cover the domain, and they lack operations like adding, updating, or deleting features. The remaining 31 tools are unrelated to GIS, so the server fails to provide a coherent or complete toolset for its stated purpose.

Resources