Skip to main content
Glama

Arcgis Tigard

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?

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description adds valuable behavioral details: it fans out to two external services, describes partial failure degradation (bundlephobia 5-30s first measurement, sources_failed listed), and confirms no destructive actions. No contradictions 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 fairly long but every sentence adds necessary detail. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then expands on behavior and edge cases. Could be slightly more concise, but it's well-structured.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given no output schema, the description lists return fields (summary block, per-advisory detail, links, alternative versions) and covers ecosystem scope, fallback behavior, and performance notes. Missing some structural details, but overall complete enough for agent selection.

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 both parameters described. The description adds semantic context: 'package' accepts scoped packages, 'version' defaults to latest. This adds value beyond the schema without being redundant.

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 it's a composite check for npm packages covering safety, popularity, and size. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'ai_visibility_check' or 'deep_research' by being a specific 'should I add this npm package' check, providing a specific verb-resource combination.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: when an agent asks about safety, popularity, or size, or 'what does adding lodash cost me'. It also specifies the ecosystem (NPM only in v1) and directs other ecosystems to a different tool, providing clear contextual boundaries.

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

All Arcgis Tigard 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
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes, especially the various ask_pipeworx variants and entity research tools (entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes). The subtle differences between ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are likely to cause agent misselection.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names use inconsistent patterns: snake_case (ask_pipeworx, query_layer) mixed with descriptive phrases (ai_visibility_check, generate_llms_txt) and no clear verb_noun structure. Some names are vague (process, run) though those are absent here; overall naming is arbitrary.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is too many for an Arcgis Tigard server. The majority are generic Pipeworx data query tools (27+ tools) that have little to do with ArcGIS, making the tool count feel bloated and unfocused for the server's stated purpose.

Completeness1/5

The server severely lacks ArcGIS-specific functionality. Only three tools (search_datasets, query_layer, layer_info) are relevant to ArcGIS; the rest are unrelated Pipeworx tools. Essential ArcGIS operations like editing, analysis, or visualization are missing, making the surface incomplete.

Resources