Skip to main content
Glama

Bundlephobia

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Size

size
Read-onlyIdempotent

Bundle size analysis — minified + gzipped, tree-shakeability, dependencies, esm/cjs detection.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
recordNoRecord the lookup publicly (default true)
packageYesnpm package name (scoped allowed)
versionNoSpecific version (default latest)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
gzipNoGzipped size in bytes
nameNoPackage name
sizeNoMinified size in bytes
brotliNoBrotli compressed size in bytes
versionNoPackage version
hasJSNextNoHas ES module support
descriptionNoPackage description
hasJSModuleNoHas CommonJS support
dependenciesNoList of dependencies
dependencyCountNoNumber of dependencies

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context by enumerating the specific analysis dimensions (minified+gzipped size, tree-shakeability, dependencies, ESM/CJS), which informs the agent about the tool's output focus. It does not describe error behavior or return format, but that is acceptable given the output schema exists.

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 a single, information-dense sentence: 'Bundle size analysis — minified + gzipped, tree-shakeability, dependencies, esm/cjs detection.' Every element adds value, and the dash after the main phrase highlights the key features. There is zero redundancy or filler.

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 simple lookup tool with three well-documented parameters, strong annotations, and an output schema, the description provides sufficient context. It identifies the core purpose and key output dimensions, and the schema and annotations cover parameters and safety. No critical information for agent invocation is missing.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for each parameter (package, version, record). The description adds no parameter-specific guidance beyond what the schema already provides. Since the schema fully documents parameters, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 function: bundle size analysis, listing specific metrics (minified + gzipped, tree-shakeability, dependencies, ESM/CJS detection). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like scan_dependency, which focuses on dependencies but not bundle size. The verb 'analysis' is implied and the resource is the npm package.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where another tool might be more appropriate (e.g., 'Use scan_dependency for dependency vulnerabilities'). The usage context must be inferred solely from the tool name and description.

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

All Bundlephobia 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

There is substantial overlap among tools in the Pipeworx group: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all route natural-language queries to the same 5,578 tools and sources, with only subtle differences in mode (beta vs stable, grounded vs standard, single vs multi-part). Similarly, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, and polymarket_fill_risk are heavily intertwined, making differentiation difficult. Tools like similar, size, history, and scan_dependency from the bundlephobia side are distinct, but the Pipeworx family muddies the set.

Naming Consistency3/5

The bundlephobia tools follow a consistent noun pattern (size, similar, history), and the Pipeworx meta-tools use snake_case verbs (ask_pipeworx, resolve_entity, compare_entities, validate_claim). However, the naming is inconsistent across the two families—bundlephobia's simple nouns (size, similar, history) clash with the verbose descriptive verbs—and naming like ai_visibility_check, scan_competitor_ai_presence, and generate_llms_txt break from the Pipeworx pattern. The set mixes short names, camelCase-ish compounds, and snake_case, so no single consistent convention holds.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is too many for a server that ostensibly serves two domains (bundle-size analysis and Pipeworx data research). The bundle-size analysis needs only a handful (size, history, similar, recent_searches, scan_dependency), yet there are over 30 tools dominated by a sprawling meta-research layer including multiple ask_pipeworx variants, several polymarket tools, plus meta-cognitive tools (remember, recall, forget, discover_tools) that are not core to either domain. This bloats the surface and makes call routing difficult.

Completeness4/5

Each functional domain is fairly complete: bundlephobia covers size measurement, history, alternatives, search, and dependency vetting; the Pipeworx side covers lookup, research, entity resolution, comparison, verification, subscriptions, and feedback. However, there are gaps—e.g., no tool for directly reading an npm package's README or license beyond scan_dependency's summary, and no explicit tools for some administrative actions like account management or subscription editing beyond create/cancel/list. The completeness is strong for what's advertised but not exhaustive.

Resources