Skip to main content
Glama

Companies House

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate safe, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds critical behavioral details: partial failures degrade gracefully, bundlephobia first measurement can take 5-30s, and the sources_failed field lists timeout sources. 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 dense but efficient, front-loading the composite purpose. Minor length for the complexity, but every sentence adds value. Could benefit from slight structuring (e.g., bullet points for return fields), but remains concise overall.

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 comprehensively lists return elements: summary block fields (is_latest, license, etc.), per-advisory detail, links, and recent alternative versions. Also mentions potential partial failures. Fully satisfies completeness given the tool's complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the description enriches parameter understanding: 'package' notes scoped packages accepted, 'version' clarifies it defaults to latest when omitted. Adds clarity beyond 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 specifies the tool's composite purpose: a single call for evaluating an npm package across deps.dev and bundlephobia. It explicitly states the tool addresses questions about safety, popularity, size, and cost. This stands out from sibling tools, which are unrelated.

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?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Use whenever an agent asks "is X safe / popular / small" or "what does adding lodash cost me".' It also clarifies ecosystem limitations (NPM only in v1) and directs to deps.dev:version for other ecosystems, drawing clear boundaries.

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

All Companies House 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

Several tools have overlapping jobs: ask_pipeworx_beta is currently identical to ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded is the same router with stricter extraction, and discover_tools/suggest_questions both serve discovery. Company-facing tools also overlap (entity_profile vs recent_changes vs compare_entities), so an agent could easily route a query to the wrong tool despite detailed descriptions.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are mostly snake_case and grouped prefixes like get_*, ask_pipeworx*, and polymarket_* are readable. However, conventions are mixed across the set: some are verb_noun (search_companies), some are noun phrases (entity_profile, deep_research, recent_changes), and the Companies House family sits awkwardly beside unrelated Pipeworx and prediction-market families.

Tool Count1/5

With 36 tools, the server is already heavy, but only five tools actually serve the named Companies House domain. The other 31 belong to Pipeworx querying, memory, subscriptions, and Polymarket trading, which is a severe mismatch between the server's stated purpose and its actual surface.

Completeness3/5

For UK company data, the core surface is mostly covered: search, company profile, filings, officers, and PSCs. However, charges and official document retrieval are missing even though get_company links to them, and the unrelated tools do nothing to complete the Companies House domain.

Resources