Skip to main content
Glama

Deps Dev

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses partial failure behavior, latency expectations (5-30s for first bundlephobia measurement), the sources_failed field, and ecosystem limitations. This is rich behavioral context that helps the agent anticipate real-world behavior.

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?

The description is compact yet complete: first sentence states purpose, second gives usage, third enumerates output, fourth notes limitations, fifth explains failure handling. No redundant words; it earns its length.

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?

For a tool with two external services, no output schema, and partial-failure modes, the description covers purpose, output structure, latency, failure handling, and ecosystem scope. It leaves no significant gaps for an agent to trip over.

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 description need not add parameter meaning. It does add context about the version's effect on first-measurement latency, but that's behavioral rather than semantic. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states exactly what the tool does with a specific verb and resource: a composite 'should I add this npm package to my project' check fanning out across deps.dev and bundlephobia. It lists the concrete data points returned, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'dependencies' or 'package'.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is given: 'Use whenever an agent asks "is X safe / popular / small" or "what does adding lodash cost me"'. It also provides exclusions and alternatives, noting NPM-only in v1 and that other ecosystems fall under deps.dev:version directly.

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