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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnly, idempotent), description adds key behavioral context: fans out across two services, returns sources_failed on timeout, and notes bundlephobia first measurement delay. This fully informs the agent about side effects and robustness.

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?

Description is fairly long but well-structured and front-loaded with the composite purpose. Each sentence provides distinct value (checks, return format, limitations). Slightly verbose but appropriate 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 no output schema, description thoroughly details return fields (summary block with specific fields, per-advisory detail, links, alternative versions). Covers edge cases (partial failures, ecosystem scope). Complete for agent decision-making.

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 already covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds minimal extra meaning ('Scoped packages accepted' for 'package', default behavior for 'version'), but doesn't significantly enhance understanding beyond 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?

Description clearly states the tool performs a composite 'should I add this npm package' check across deps.dev and bundlephobia, covering license, advisories, version history, and bundle size. It distinguishes from ecosystem-specific versions mentioned (deps.dev:version) and sibling tools like 'resolve_entity'.

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: when an agent asks 'is X safe/popular/small' or 'what does adding lodash cost me'. It states NPM-only scope for v1 and points to deps.dev:version for other ecosystems. Also warns about potential 5-30s delay and partial failures.

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
Disambiguation3/5

Several clusters overlap in purpose: ask_pipeworx / ask_pipeworx_beta / ask_pipeworx_grounded / deep_research all answer factual questions, and the six Polymarket tools (arbitrage, edges, edge_tracker, fill_risk, kalshi_spread, bet_research) have subtle boundaries even with detailed descriptions. The descriptions are strong, but an agent must read carefully to reliably pick the right tool.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, resolve_entity, validate_claim) with recognizable family prefixes (polymarket_*, pipeworx_*, ask_pipeworx_*). Minor deviations like single-noun names (datasets, metadata, query) and mixed lookup verbs (ask vs query vs search vs discover) keep it from a 5.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is heavy for a single server, and the scope sprawls across general data routing, prediction-market analytics, memory management, subscription bookkeeping, AI visibility checks, and npm dependency scanning. The families are organized, but the count exceeds the 25-tool threshold and would be better split into focused servers.

Completeness4/5

For a data-research server, coverage is broad: universal routing, grounded answers, deep research, entity profiles, comparisons, change feeds, claim verification, dataset search/query/metadata, subscriptions, and memory. Minor gaps exist—no subscription update operation and no full-catalog browse beyond search—but agents can work around them.