Skip to main content
Glama

Ecuador Procurement

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

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable behavioral details: partial failures with graceful degradation, bundlephobia's first measurement delay (5-30s), and that sources_failed will list timeouts. No contradictions.

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 a single dense paragraph, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: composite nature, when to use, ecosystem scope, failure behavior, and output format. No excess words.

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 details the return structure: summary block with specific fields, per-advisory detail, links, and alternative versions. It also addresses partial failures and timeouts. Comprehensive for a 2-parameter tool.

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 description coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds extra context: scoped packages are accepted, version defaults to latest when omitted. This enhances understanding beyond the schema.

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 the tool's purpose as a composite check for adding npm packages, specifying the resources consulted (deps.dev and bundlephobia) and the return fields. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on npm package evaluation.

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 notes ecosystem limitations (NPM only) and directs to alternatives for other ecosystems (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 Ecuador Procurement 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route to the same underlying catalog, and ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx right now. The six Polymarket-related tools also form a confusing cluster where boundaries require reading very long descriptions to separate.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most names use lowercase snake_case, but conventions are mixed: some are verb_object forms like resolve_entity or validate_claim, while others are noun phrases like entity_profile, recent_alerts, or polymarket_edges. The ask_pipeworx family and domain-prefixed ecuador_ tools add further inconsistency, though the names remain readable.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is already above the 25-tool threshold, but the bigger problem is scope mismatch: only two tools relate to Ecuador procurement, while 31 are generic Pipeworx, Polymarket, memory, subscription, and utility tools. The set is heavily overbuilt for the server's stated purpose.

Completeness3/5

The Ecuador domain itself has a workable minimal read path: search tenders, then fetch full detail by OCID. However, there are no Ecuador-specific browsing, filtering, category, agency, or analytics tools, and the huge unrelated toolset does nothing to fill those gaps.

Resources