Skip to main content
Glama

Deps Dev

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Dependencies

dependencies
Read-onlyIdempotent

The fully resolved dependency graph of one published release — every transitive package it pulls in. Same requirement as version: the version must be one this package actually shipped, so call package first if you are not certain.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesPackage name as the registry spells it.
system_YesNPM | PYPI | GO | MAVEN | NUGET | CARGO | RUBYGEMS
versionYesAn exact version string THIS package published — from the `package` tool, not assumed.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / name / description
      Added value: +"Package name as the registry spells it."
    • addedInput schema / properties / system_ / description
      Added value: +"NPM | PYPI | GO | MAVEN | NUGET | CARGO | RUBYGEMS"
    • addedInput schema / properties / version / description
      Added value: +"An exact version string THIS package published — from the `package` tool, not assumed."
  2. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "name": "webpack",
+    "system_": "NPM",
+    "version": "5.88.0"
+  },
+  {
+    "name": "org.springframework:spring-core",
+    "system_": "MAVEN",
+    "version": "6.0.0"
+  }
+]
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "description": "Resolved dependency graph for a package version",
+  "properties": {},
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well by clarifying that this returns the fully resolved transitive dependency graph for a specific shipped release, not arbitrary version queries. It also surfaces the prerequisite behavior of needing a real published version. It could add more about failure mode but is not a severe gap.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core concept, and then provides a necessary prerequisite without wasted words. A little more structured separation could improve readability, but it is efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The parameters are fully documented in the schema, an output schema is present, and the description clarifies the key operational constraint around versions. For a moderately simple dependency-graph tool this covers what an agent needs, though relative sibling behavior could be spelled out further.

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%, so the schema fully documents `system_`, `name`, and `version`. The description adds useful semantic weight around `version` by requiring it to be a shipped release, but it does not substantially extend the other parameters beyond their schema descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the tool as returning the fully resolved dependency graph of a published release, including transitive packages. This is a specific resource and function, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings like `scan_dependency`, so it stops short of perfect clarity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives strong usage guidance: the version must be one the package actually shipped, and it explicitly tells the agent to call `package` first if uncertain. However, it does not describe when alternatives such as `scan_dependency` should be preferred, so exclusionary guidance is incomplete.

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

All Deps Dev 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are nearly identical routers, the six polymarket tools cover similar prediction-market territory with fuzzy boundaries, and the deps.dev tools (package/version/dependencies/query/scan_dependency) all deliver dependency metadata. An agent would frequently need the lengthy descriptions to pick the right one.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names mix several conventions: noun-only names (package, version, query, project, dependencies), verb_noun names (scan_dependency, validate_claim, resolve_entity), and family-prefixed names (ask_pipeworx_*, polymarket_*, pipeworx_*). There is no single consistent pattern across the set.

Tool Count2/5

With 36 tools, the server is well past the 'heavy' threshold. The scope is also sprawling: general data querying, dependency lookup, memory management, subscriptions, prediction markets, claim verification, and AI-visibility scanning. Many tools could be consolidated or moved to separate servers.

Completeness3/5

The tool set is individually broad and covers many workflows, but the server's stated identity ('Deps Dev') does not match the dominant Pipeworx data surface, creating an unclear core purpose. Within the dependency sub-domain it is fairly complete, and the data-research workflows have decent coverage, but gaps like subscription updates and true deps.dev ecosystem coverage suggest the surface is improvised.

Resources