Skip to main content
Glama

Currents

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. First observed

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool as non-destructive and idempotent; the description adds crucial context: partial failures, bundlephobia's 5-30s timeout, and graceful degradation via 'sources_failed' list. No contradictions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Dense but well-structured: purpose first, then use cases, output summary, limitations. Every sentence adds necessary information without fluff.

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 fields and explains dynamic behavior (partial failure, timeout). Complete for a composite multi-source tool.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining scoped package acceptance and version default behavior, exceeding mere schema repetition.

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's purpose as a composite check for evaluating npm packages, specific verb ('scan dependency'), resource ('npm package'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like resolve_entity or deep_research.

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 indicates when to use ('whenever an agent asks 'is X safe / popular / small'') and mentions limitations (NPM only; other ecosystems via deps.dev), providing clear context and exclusions.

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

All Currents 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tool clusters are hard to tell apart: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-identical routers (beta currently behaves exactly like stable), and the six polymarket_* tools plus bet_research all overlap around edge and arbitrage discovery. The descriptions are detailed and help, but an agent must read carefully to avoid misselecting a sibling tool.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are consistently lowercase snake_case, but the verb/noun ordering is mixed: verb-first names (ask_pipeworx, list_categories, resolve_entity) coexist with noun-first names (polymarket_edges, entity_profile, pipeworx_feedback, recent_alerts) and bare verbs (remember, recall, forget). Readable overall, but the pattern is not systematic.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well beyond the 25+ threshold and spans at least six loosely related domains (news, structured data research, prediction markets, AI visibility, memory, subscriptions), making the server feel like a multi-product grab bag. Meta-tools like discover_tools, suggest_questions, and pipeworx_trending add further navigation overhead.

Completeness4/5

Within each bundled domain the lifecycle is well covered: data lookup has routing, grounded mode, deep research, entity resolution, comparison, and claim validation; Polymarket has research, arbitrage, edge, fill-risk, and cross-venue spread tools; memory and subscriptions each have full CRUD-ish flows. Minor gaps like subscription updating or direct article-by-ID fetching are workarounds rather than dead ends.

Resources