Skip to main content
Glama

Color Pizza

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.

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds valuable behavioral details: partial failures from BundlePhobia timeouts (5-30s), graceful degradation with sources_failed field, and reliance on external services. No contradictions 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 relatively lengthy but well-structured. It front-loads the main purpose and gradually adds details. Every sentence contributes meaningfully, though some trimming could improve conciseness without losing information.

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 no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return structure (summary block with fields, per-advisory detail, links, alternative versions). It covers edge cases like partial failures and ecosystem limitations, making the tool behavior fully transparent without requiring additional reference.

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 good descriptions for both parameters. The description reinforces the default behavior for version (latest when omitted) and adds acceptance of scoped packages. This provides marginal extra value over the 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 it performs a composite check for adding npm packages, combining deps.dev and bundlephobia data. It uses specific verbs like 'fans out' and lists exact data points (license, advisories, bundle size). It differentiates from sibling tools by specifying the npm ecosystem and the composite nature.

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". It also provides a clear exclusion: other ecosystems (PyPI, Maven, etc.) should use a different tool. This helps the agent avoid incorrect invocations.

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

All Color Pizza 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

A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, such as `entity_profile` for company profiles and `recent_changes` for updates. However, some overlap exists between `ask_pipeworx` and `ask_pipeworx_grounded` (both query data, one with hallucination resistance), and among Polymarket-related tools (`bet_research`, `polymarket_edges`, `polymarket_arbitrage`). Detailed descriptions help distinguish them.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern (e.g., `ai_visibility_check`, `ask_pipeworx`, `bet_research`, `compare_entities`). No mixing of camelCase or other conventions. The names are descriptive and predictable.

Tool Count3/5

At 29 tools, the server is on the heavy side. While each tool serves a specific function, the broad scope (color naming, Polymarket betting, company research, etc.) makes the count feel slightly high for a single server, though still manageable.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers color naming, company research, Polymarket, AI visibility, memory, subscriptions, and data queries comprehensively. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct SEC filing retrieval without compound tools), but overall it provides a well-rounded surface for its diverse domain.

Resources