Skip to main content
Glama

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?

Discloses behavioral traits beyond annotations: it fans out to external services, may take 5-30s for bundlephobia's first measurement, degrades gracefully with partial failures listed in 'sources_failed'. Annotations only indicate read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive.

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 long but every sentence adds useful information. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and structured logically. Could be slightly more concise but is still effective.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description details the return format (summary block, per-advisory details, links, alternative versions) and handles edge cases (partial failures, sources_failed). For a tool with 2 parameters and 100% schema coverage, this is sufficiently complete.

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 already fully describes parameters (100% coverage). Description adds value by noting scoped packages are accepted for 'package' and default behavior when 'version' is omitted. This provides extra clarity beyond schema descriptions.

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's a composite check for evaluating npm packages across deps.dev and bundlephobia, addressing questions about safety, popularity, and size. It distinguishes itself from unrelated sibling tools by specifying the exact use case.

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 tells when to use (e.g., when asked 'is X safe / popular / small') and when not to use (other ecosystems like PyPI, Maven, etc., which fall under a different tool). Also provides context on partial failures and timeouts.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools are near-identical: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly the same right now, and the three ask_pipeworx variants plus deep_research all route the same underlying catalog. The six polymarket_* tools also have heavily overlapping purposes, requiring deep reading to choose correctly. Most other tools are distinguishable, but these clusters create real misselection risk.

Naming Consistency3/5

The set is uniformly snake_case and mostly descriptive, with consistent micro-families like remember/recall/forget and polymarket_*. However, there is no single convention across the server: verb_noun names (ask_pipeworx, list_subscriptions) mix with noun-first names (entity_profile, bet_research, nearest_color), and the Pipeworx brand is used as both prefix and suffix. Readable but inconsistent.

Tool Count2/5

At 34 tools, the surface is far larger than a typical well-scoped server, and the count is especially unjustified for a server named 'Color' where only three tools relate to that name. The breadth stems from bolting a full data-research platform, prediction-market suite, memory store, and subscription system onto what appears to be a simple utility. Too heavy.

Completeness4/5

For the dominant Pipeworx research domain, the set is unusually thorough: query, grounded verification, deep research, entity resolution, comparisons, claim validation, change feeds, subscriptions, alerts, memory, and discovery are all present. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct account management tool, and color coverage only includes convert/contrast/nearest with no palette generation), but these are workaround-able. Completeness is strong for the real domain, if mismatched with the server name.