Skip to main content
Glama

Chile Procurement

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. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. Description adds that bundlephobia's first measurement can take 5-30s, partial failures degrade gracefully, and sources_failed will list timeouts. Adds context beyond 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?

Description is moderately long but well-structured: front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then details. No fluff; every sentence adds value.

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?

Covers complexity of multiple data sources, return fields listed, edge cases like partial failures and timeouts addressed. No output schema but description lists return fields adequately.

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 descriptions for both parameters. Description adds that scoped packages are accepted and version defaults to latest, providing extra meaning beyond schema.

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?

Description clearly states it is a composite check for adding an npm package, covering license, advisories, bundle size, etc. It distinguishes well from sibling tools by being specific to npm dependency scanning.

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 says when to use: when an agent asks 'is X safe/popular/small' or 'what does adding lodash cost me'. Also notes NPM-only and alternative for other ecosystems.

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

All Chile Procurement 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools are distinct, but the ask_pipeworx family (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) heavily overlaps—the beta is explicitly identical to the stable version. The two Chile-specific tools are clear, but the presence of numerous unrelated data tools creates confusion about which tool serves the server's purported purpose.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is inconsistent: some tools follow verb_noun snake_case (chile_get_tender, chile_search_tenders), others use plain verbs (ask_pipeworx) or noun_verb patterns (polymarket_arbitrage, entity_profile). Mixed conventions and varying levels of specificity make the set feel uncoordinated.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is excessive for a server named 'Chile Procurement'—only two tools relate to Chile procurement, while the rest are generic Pipeworx data utilities. The count is not scoped to the server's stated purpose; it appears to be a bundled general-purpose toolkit rather than a focused procurement interface.

Completeness2/5

For Chile procurement, only search and get-detail are provided; there is no ability to list all historical tenders, filter by category or amount, or track bidding. The read-only surface covers basic retrieval but lacks common procurement workflows. The broader data tools are complete individually but irrelevant to the server's domain.

Resources