Skip to main content
Glama

Texas Open Data

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds critical behavioral context: graceful degradation for partial failures, bundlephobia's initial 5-30s latency, and the sources_failed list. 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 slightly long but every sentence adds distinct value. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and return structure. Could be tightened slightly, but overall efficient and well-structured.

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 thoroughly details the return structure (summary block, per-advisory detail, links, recent alternative versions) and covers edge cases like partial failures and timing. This provides complete context for the tool's usage.

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 descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by clarifying scoped package syntax ('@types/node') and default behavior when version is omitted. While the schema is already clear, the examples enhance usability.

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 succinctly defines the tool as a composite check for npm packages, fanning out to deps.dev and bundlephobia. It clearly states the verb ('check') and distinguishes from siblings by specifying the npm ecosystem and composite nature.

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 states when to use ('is X safe / popular / small' or 'what does adding lodash cost me') and provides guidance for other ecosystems (PyPI/Maven/Cargo/Go) by directing to alternative tools. This is exemplary usage guidance.

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

All Texas Open Data 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

Tools are individually well-described, but there is overlapping functionality among ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research, as well as multiple prediction market tools. The detailed descriptions help, but the number of similar tools creates some ambiguity.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern with descriptive prefixes (e.g., ask_pipeworx, entity_profile, polymarket_edges). There are minor deviations like 'deep_research' vs 'bet_research' but overall the naming is predictable and clear.

Tool Count2/5

The server is named 'Texas Open Data' but only 3 of 33 tools (datasets, metadata, query) are directly related to Texas open data. The remaining tools cover a much broader domain (Pipeworx ecosystem), making the tool count inappropriate for the stated purpose.

Completeness2/5

For the stated purpose of Texas Open Data, the tool surface is incomplete—only basic query and metadata capabilities are provided, lacking data management, update, or delete operations. As a general pipeworx server it might be more complete, but the name suggests Texas-specific data.

Resources