Skip to main content
Glama

Cloudflare Radar

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: mentions partial failures, bundlephobia's first measurement can take 5-30s, and that sources_failed will list timeouts. No contradiction with 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?

The description is moderately long but every sentence is informative. It is front-loaded with a clear summary. Slight verbosity could be tightened, but it remains well-structured and readable.

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 (composite check from multiple sources, no output schema), the description provides comprehensive context: return structure (summary block, advisories, links, alternatives), behavior (graceful degradation, timing issues), and ecosystem scope. It leaves no critical gaps for agent usage.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add substantial meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions (package name and version). It mentions version defaults to latest, but that's already in 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: performing a composite security/size/popularity check for npm packages. It specifies the sources (deps.dev, bundlephobia) and what checks are performed (license, advisories, bundle size, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools by limiting scope to NPM ecosystem.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use whenever an agent asks "is X safe / popular / small" or "what does adding lodash cost me"'. It also tells when NOT to use (PyPI/Maven/Cargo/Go) and directs to a different tool (deps.dev:version).

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

All Cloudflare Radar 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

There are three ask_pipeworx variants that overlap heavily, plus five polymarket_* tools scanning similar market edges, and meta-tools like discover_tools, suggest_questions, and deep_research that blur together. ai_visibility_check and scan_competitor_ai_presence also overlap. The Cloudflare Radar tools are distinct, but they are a small minority in a sea of overlapping data/prediction-market tools.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools use snake_case, but the pattern is inconsistent: some are verb_noun (list_subscriptions, resolve_entity, scan_dependency), some are noun_phrase (bgp_leaks, internet_quality, radar_domain_rank), and some use vendor-prefixed naming inconsistently (ask_pipeworx vs pipeworx_feedback vs pipeworx_trending). It is readable but not predictable.

Tool Count2/5

37 tools is heavy for any single server, and the collection spans unrelated domains: Cloudflare Radar, Pipeworx data lookup, Polymarket betting, memory, subscriptions, and npm scanning. The count feels like a bundled platform rather than a focused tool set, and many tools could be split into separate servers.

Completeness3/5

The Pipeworx data-research side is quite complete (ask, grounded, deep_research, entity_profile, compare_entities, validate_claim, resolve_entity, discover_tools, recent_changes), and the prediction-market side has good coverage (edges, arbitrage, fill risk, cross-venue spread, tracking). However, the Cloudflare Radar portion is thin—only six tools cover a service known for many more traffic/attack/outage metrics—and the overall surface has no cohesive domain to judge completeness against.

Resources