Skip to main content
Glama

Caniuse

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Support

support
Read-onlyIdempotent

Convenience: is this feature supported in this browser version? Returns the raw caniuse support string + a parsed verdict.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
browserYesBrowser id (chrome, safari, firefox, edge, ios_saf, ...)
featureYesFeature id (see `search` / `feature`)
versionNoBrowser version (default latest)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rawYesRaw caniuse support string
titleYesFeature title
browserYesBrowser identifier
featureYesFeature identifier
verdictYesParsed support verdict
versionYesBrowser version queried

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it returns both raw and parsed output, which is useful but doesn't disclose potential errors or rate limits. Given the strong annotation coverage, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the purpose and output. No wasted words.

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?

With a simple purpose, good annotations, and an output schema, the description is sufficient. It explains the return format and the input context without needing further elaboration.

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?

All three parameters are fully described in the schema with 100% coverage. The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the 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 checks whether a feature is supported in a given browser version, distinguishing it from sibling tools like `feature` and `search`. It specifies the output: raw caniuse string plus parsed verdict.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool (checking browser support) via the direct phrasing. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the 'Convenience' framing implies a quick check, and no sibling tool serves this exact purpose.

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