Skip to main content
Glama

Ecb

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

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, and idempotent behavior. The description adds critical behavioral details: bundlephobia's first measurement can take 5-30 seconds, and partial failures degrade gracefully (sources_failed list). This goes beyond annotations.

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?

Concise yet comprehensive: 120 words, front-loaded with purpose and usage, then behavioral details and return fields. No wasted sentences.

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 fully explains the return value: summary block fields, per-advisory details, links, and alternative versions. This is contextually complete for the tool's complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, but description adds value by clarifying that scoped packages (e.g., @types/node) are accepted and version defaults to latest. These are useful for correct invocation.

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 defines the purpose as a composite check for npm package evaluation using deps.dev and bundlephobia. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the ecosystem and the type of analysis (license, advisories, bundle size, tree-shaking).

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: 'whenever an agent asks 'is X safe / popular / small' or 'what does adding lodash cost me''. Also clarifies the limitation to NPM ecosystem, directing users to deps.dev for other ecosystems.

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

All Ecb 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

There is significant overlap between tool clusters: ask_pipeworx_beta is currently functionally identical to ask_pipeworx, and polymarket_arbitrage/polymarket_edges/bet_research all target similar opportunity-discovery tasks. While the descriptions are extremely detailed, the sheer number of similar variants makes it hard to reliably pick the right one.

Naming Consistency4/5

Names are consistently snake_case with meaningful prefixes (ask_, ecb_, polymarket_, pipeworx_) and mostly verb-first structure. Minor deviations like entity_profile and ecb_hicp_inflation are noun-first, but they do not break the overall pattern.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is well beyond the well-scoped 3–15 range, and the surface feels bloated with redundant meta-tools (ask_pipeworx variants, deep_research, discover_tools, suggest_questions) and peripheral utilities like generate_llms_txt and scan_dependency. Many entries could be consolidated without losing function.

Completeness4/5

For the server's broad data-research domain, coverage is thoughtful and full: query, grounded answer, validation, entity resolution, profiling, comparative analysis, subscription lifecycle, memory, and feedback are all represented. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct raw ECB flow browser beyond generic SDMX) but nothing blocking.

Resources