Skip to main content
Glama

Caniuse

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Feature

feature
Read-onlyIdempotent

Full caniuse record for a feature id (e.g. "css-grid", "fetch", "webp").

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesFeature identifier
bugsNoKnown bugs
specNoSpecification URL
linksNoRelated links
notesNoAdditional notes
statsNoSupport stats by browser
titleYesFeature title
parentNoParent feature id
statusNoFeature status (standardized, etc.)
keywordsNoKeywords for search
ucprefixNoRequires vendor prefix
categoriesNoFeature categories
descriptionNoFeature description

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description's incremental value is modest. It adds that the record is 'full' and provides example IDs, but does not disclose additional behaviors like error handling or data freshness.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, effectively communicating purpose and parameters.

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 the tool's simplicity, a one-parameter lookup with a full output schema, the description is mostly complete. It omits edge-case behavior (e.g., unknown feature IDs), but the output schema and annotations cover the remaining context.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining that 'name' is a feature ID and providing examples. This gives the agent sufficient meaning to invoke the tool correctly, though it could add syntax or formatting details if needed.

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 identifies the tool as retrieving a full caniuse record for a given feature ID, with concrete examples like 'css-grid' and 'fetch'. This specifies a distinct resource and scope, distinguishing it from any sibling search tools.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies the tool is for fetching comprehensive feature data, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like search or search_within, nor does it mention any exclusions. Usage context is present but not detailed.

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

All Caniuse 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

The tool set has significant overlap: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-identical variants, and deep_research, entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes, and validate_claim all retrieve structured data with overlapping capabilities. The five Polymarket-oriented tools (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) further blur boundaries. Agents will struggle to select the right tool without reading very long descriptions.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a clear snake_case verb_noun pattern (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, validate_claim), and the polymarket_* cluster is consistently prefixed. However, a few tools are bare nouns (feature, support, search) and the remember/forget/recall trio deviates from the dominant pattern, creating minor inconsistency.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is excessive for a server named 'Caniuse' — only 4 tools actually pertain to browser compatibility (feature, support, search, list_browsers), while 31 are Pipeworx data tools. The server name misrepresents the content, and the sheer number overwhelms rather than scopes the surface.

Completeness3/5

For the caniuse domain, coverage is complete (search, feature, support, list_browsers). The Pipeworx side includes meta-tools (discover_tools, suggest_questions), retrieval, memory, subscriptions, and feedback, but some tools require accounts and there are gaps like no direct way to list all data sources without discover_tools. The overall surface is broad but lacks obvious missing operations for any single coherent domain.

Resources