Skip to main content
Glama

Corporate Apology

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?

Beyond annotations (readOnly, idempotent), the description discloses partial failure behavior, the 5-30s first-measurement latency, and the sources_failed field. No contradiction with annotations; it adds valuable operational context.

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 a single dense paragraph but every sentence contributes critical use-case, output field, or limitation information. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, though a bit of structuring could improve scanability.

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?

With no output schema, the description enumerates the exact summary fields, per-advisory details, links, alternative versions, and failure behavior. It covers both the composite nature and edge cases, making it complete for the tool's scope.

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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already describes both parameters (package name and version default). The description does not add additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so it receives the baseline score.

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 is a composite 'should I add this npm package' check that fans out across deps.dev and bundlephobia. It identifies the specific verb (scan), resource (dependency), and expected outputs, distinguishing it from unrelated sibling tools.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use whenever an agent asks "is X safe / popular / small"' and provides an exclusion: NPM only, with PyPI/Maven/etc. falling under deps.dev:version directly. This gives clear when-to-use and alternative guidance.

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

All Corporate Apology 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
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes with detailed descriptions. Some overlap exists in the Polymarket-related tools, but each has a specific focus (arbitrage detection, edge scanning, persistence tracking, fill risk, cross-venue spread). The two ask_pipeworx variants are similar but differentiated by hallucination resistance.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names use lowercase with underscores, following a consistent pattern of verb_noun or noun_verb. Examples include 'ai_visibility_check', 'bet_research', 'entity_profile', and 'validate_claim'. There are no mixed conventions or erratic naming.

Tool Count2/5

The server is named 'Corporate Apology' but contains 31 tools, only one of which (corporate_apology_generate) relates to apologies. The vast majority are unrelated data retrieval and analysis tools, making the count excessive and poorly scoped for the server's stated purpose.

Completeness1/5

For a server focused on corporate apologies, the only tool is corporate_apology_generate. There are no tools for analyzing apology impact, managing crisis response, or tracking apologies. The tool surface is severely incomplete relative to the server's name.

Resources