Skip to main content
Glama

uooks

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses significant behavioral details beyond annotations: it fans out across multiple data sources, may have a 5-30s first-time delay from bundlephobia, degrades gracefully with partial failures, and includes 'sources_failed' to indicate timeouts. This complements the readOnly/idempotent hints and provides actionable expectations.

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 three well-structured sentences: purpose, usage, and behavior. It front-loads the core function, includes examples, and covers failure modes without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (multiple data sources, no output schema), the description is complete: it lists return fields (summary block, advisories, links, alternative versions), explains the ecosystem limitation, and details failure handling and timing. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the explicit enumeration of returned data.

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 schema covers 100% of the parameters with clear descriptions (package name, optional version). The tool description does not add extra semantics about the parameters themselves, but it does imply that the package and version are used across the fan-out services. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already handles parameter meaning.

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 is a composite 'should I add this npm package' check that fans out to deps.dev and bundlephobia. The specific verb ('check') and resource (npm package) are present, and the ecosystem scope ('NPM ecosystem only in v1') distinguishes it from sibling research tools.

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?

It provides explicit usage triggers: 'Use whenever an agent asks "is X safe / popular / small" or "what does adding lodash cost me"'. It also gives exclusions by stating that other ecosystems (PyPI/Maven/Cargo/Go) should use deps.dev:version directly, which serves as an alternative.

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

All uooks 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Several tool families overlap at the boundaries: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route questions to the same 5,724 tools, and ask_pipeworx_beta is currently functionally identical to ask_pipeworx. The Polymarket family is large but each member has a fairly distinct role (research vs. edge scan vs. fill risk vs. tracking); the memory trio and book tools are clear.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools follow a snake_case verb_noun pattern (get_book, create, search_books, resolve_entity, list_subscriptions), but there are notable exceptions: recall/remember/forget are bare verbs without a domain prefix, ask_pipeworx begins with a verb but doesn't follow the noun-object structure, and ai_visibility_check/generate_llms_txt break the pattern. It's readable and mostly predictable, but not uniform.

Tool Count3/5

35 tools is heavy and exceeds the typical well-scoped range, but the server is a meta-platform exposing a universal data router plus prediction-market analysis, book lookup, memory, subscriptions, and several composite research tools. Each tool appears to earn its place, though the set feels sprawling and would benefit from consolidation of the ask_pipeworx variants.

Completeness4/5

Coverage is thorough within the apparent domains: data lookup has multiple tiers (casual, grounded, deep research, claim validation), the Polymarket workflow is complete from research to edge discovery to fill-risk verification, memory has save/retrieve/delete, and subscriptions have create/list/cancel/pull. Minor gaps exist (e.g., book author search by name only via Open Library key, no direct tool for invoking a specific raw data pack), but nothing that would strand an agent.

Resources