Skip to main content
Glama

Comtrade

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it's a composite call fanning out to two services, handles partial failures gracefully, mentions potential delay for bundlephobia's first measurement, and describes the return structure. 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 somewhat long but every sentence provides essential information. It is well-structured: begins with purpose, then usage, then return details, then limitations. A minor trim could improve conciseness, but it remains efficient for the complexity.

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 call, multiple fields, error handling) and the absence of an output schema, the description thoroughly explains all facets: return format (summary block fields, advisories, links, versions), partial failure behavior, and timing considerations. It leaves no critical gaps.

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 both parameters documented. The description adds semantic value by explaining that scoped packages (e.g., '@types/node') are accepted and that the 'version' parameter defaults to the latest published version, enhancing the agent's understanding beyond the raw 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 performs a composite check for npm packages, combining deps.dev and bundlephobia to answer questions about safety, popularity, and size. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (none of which are dependency scanners) by specifying the exact use case and output.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: whenever an agent asks 'is X safe / popular / small' or 'what does adding lodash cost me'. It also notes the ecosystem limitation (npm only in v1) and suggests an alternative for other package managers via deps.dev, providing clear when-not guidance.

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

All Comtrade 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Some tools have near-identical purposes (ask_pipeworx vs ask_pipeworx_beta are currently identical; polymarket_arbitrage vs polymarket_edges both find opportunities), but detailed descriptions and distinct input patterns mostly help an agent choose. A few discovery/verification tools (suggest_questions vs discover_tools, validate_claim vs ask_pipeworx_grounded) also overlap, creating residual ambiguity.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are snake_case and many use domain prefixes (comtrade_, polymarket_, pipeworx_), but the set mixes verb_noun (compare_entities, discover_tools), bare verbs (remember, forget, subscribe), and noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_changes). This inconsistency, plus the use of domain-specific prefixes as a substitute for a uniform verb_noun style, makes the naming pattern only moderately predictable.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is well beyond the typical well-scoped range, and the vast majority (prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, feedback, npm dependency checks) have nothing to do with the server's apparent Comtrade trade-data purpose. This bloat makes the set feel unfocused, even though some meta-tools serve a general data-access mission.

Completeness4/5

For the Comtrade trade-data domain, the four comtrade_* tools cover country codes, top commodities, top partners, and detailed bilateral trade values — enough for most queries, with minor gaps like time-series trends or tariff lookups. For the broader Pipeworx data-access scope, the set is extensive (ask_pipeworx, deep_research, entity_profile, validate_claim, subscriptions), so no severe dead ends are apparent.

Resources