Skip to main content
Glama

Devto

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.

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, etc.), the description adds critical behavioral traits: composite fan-out, timing delay for first bundlephobia measurement (5-30s), and graceful degradation with sources_failed reporting. These are not inferrable from annotations alone.

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 a single paragraph but is well-structured, starting with the composite purpose and then providing details. It is concise enough (about 150 words) given the complexity. Could be slightly improved with bullet points for the return block, but still effective.

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 lacking an output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return value (summary block fields, advisory details, links, alternative versions). It also covers ecosystem scope, default behavior, failure modes, and timing, making the tool completely understandable for agents.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by noting scoped package acceptance ('@types/node') and reiterating default version behavior. It does not add syntactic details beyond the schema, but the extra context on scoped packages justifies a score of 4.

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 it's a composite check for npm packages combining deps.dev and bundlephobia data. It uses specific verbs ('Scan Dependency') and resource ('npm package'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by noting the NPM-only scope and alternative for other ecosystems.

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: 'Use whenever an agent asks 'is X safe / popular / small' or 'what does adding lodash cost me'.' Also provides context on alternatives for non-NPM ecosystems and details graceful degradation for partial failures.

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

All Devto 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
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes with clear descriptions, but some overlap exists, e.g., ask_pipeworx vs ask_pipeworx_grounded, and several entity/company tools that could be confused. Overall, well-described and mostly disambiguated.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tool names follow consistent patterns: snake_case, with clear prefixes for each group (e.g., polymarket_*, pipeworx_*, get_article, etc.). Naming is predictable and systematic, making it easy to understand the tool's domain and action.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is high for a server named 'Devto', where only a few tools actually relate to DEV.to. The majority are for Pipeworx data and Polymarket, which are unrelated. The tool count feels bloated and misaligned with the server's apparent primary purpose.

Completeness2/5

For the DEV.to domain, coverage is incomplete: lacks create/update/delete for articles and missing user profile management. The Pipeworx and Polymarket tools are extensive, but that doesn't compensate for the gaps in the core feature set implied by the server name.

Resources