Skip to main content
Glama

Arcgis Carlsbad

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. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, etc.), the description discloses compound behavior (fans out across services), latency (5-30s first measurement), graceful degradation, and explicit failure reporting (sources_failed). No contradiction with annotations.

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 substantial but each sentence carries valuable information: purpose, data sources, use cases, return fields, ecosystem constraints, and failure behavior. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses punctuation for readability. A slightly tighter structure would earn a 5.

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?

For a composite tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it lists the exact return fields, explains failure handling, provides latency expectations, and clarifies the ecosystem limitation. An agent has all necessary context to invoke and interpret the result.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage of both parameters, including defaults and scoped-package acceptance. The description adds ecosystem scope nuance ('NPM ecosystem only in v1') but does not significantly enrich the meaning of the parameters beyond what the schema states.

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 purpose as a composite 'should I add this npm package to my project' check, naming specific data sources (deps.dev and bundlephobia) and kinds of information returned. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'scan_competitor_ai_presence' by focusing on npm dependency scanning.

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?

Provides explicit usage triggers ('Use whenever an agent asks...') and even specifies an alternative for non-NPM ecosystems ('PyPI / Maven / Cargo / Go fall under deps.dev:version directly'). This is clear guidance on when to use this tool versus others.

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

All Arcgis Carlsbad 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

Several tools have overlapping purposes, e.g., multiple 'ask' tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research) and multiple 'compare' tools (compare_entities, scan_competitor_ai_presence). Descriptions are verbose but often don't clearly distinguish when to use each, causing confusion.

Naming Consistency1/5

Naming is highly inconsistent: snake_case (ai_visibility_check), camelCase (polymarket_fill_risk), and arbitrary prefixes (scan_, generate_, etc.). No consistent verb_noun pattern; e.g., 'query_layer' vs 'search_datasets' vs 'layer_info' all involve data retrieval but use different patterns.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is excessive for a server purportedly focused on ArcGIS Carlsbad. Many tools are unrelated (e.g., polymarket betting, npm package scanning). The core ArcGIS functionality could be covered by 3-5 tools, but the server is bloated with Pipeworx utilities.

Completeness3/5

The ArcGIS portion lacks update/delete capabilities and is limited to querying. The Pipeworx tools cover a broad range of data sources but introduce many dependencies and meta-tools, creating a cluttered surface with dead ends (e.g., tools requiring paid accounts without fallback).

Resources