Skip to main content
Glama

Elexon

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent), description details external API fan-out, partial degradation ('sources_failed will list if it times out'), and a performance caveat ('bundlephobia's first measurement can take 5-30s'). No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Description is well-structured, starting with the core value proposition, then usage, return details, limitations, and performance caveat. While informative, it could be slightly more concise without losing clarity.

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 no output schema, the description sufficiently describes return value composition (summary block, per-advisory detail, links, alternative versions). It covers partial failures and ecosystem scope. All necessary context for correct agent invocation is present.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds minimal extra beyond schema: it confirms package accepts scoped packages and explains version defaults, but these are already in schema. The high-level context (checking safety, size) is useful but does not deepen parameter semantics.

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 states it's a composite check for npm packages, with specific verbs 'scan' and 'dependency'. It distinguishes from siblings like scan_competitor_ai_presence by focusing solely on npm ecosystem and combining deps.dev and bundlephobia data.

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 provides usage scenarios: 'is X safe/popular/small' or 'what does adding lodash cost me'. Also notes ecosystem limitation ('NPM ecosystem only') and points to alternatives for other ecosystems ('PyPI/Maven... 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 Elexon 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
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools have unclear boundaries: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical right now, ask_pipeworx_grounded/deep_research heavily overlap as high-level routing entry points, and the five Polymarket tools (edges, arbitrage, edge_tracker, fill_risk, bet_research) cover closely related concerns. The descriptions are detailed, but an agent can easily select the wrong entry point.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are snake_case and readable, but conventions are mixed: verb-first names (query_dataset, validate_claim, discover_tools) coexist with noun-phrase names (system_demand, entity_profile, recent_changes), and prefix families are applied inconsistently (elexon_* and polymarket_* exist, but bet_research, generation_by_fuel, and system_demand have no prefix). The pattern is understandable but not predictable enough to be considered consistent.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is well above the 25-tool threshold for a heavy surface, and many tools are orthogonal to the nominal Elexon scope: memory (remember/recall/forget), subscriptions, npm dependency scanning, and llms.txt generation. The count forces significant discovery overhead and makes the set feel bloated rather than well-scoped.

Completeness4/5

The Elexon core is solid: elexon_list_datasets plus query_dataset covers all 84 BMRS datasets, with direct shortcuts for system prices, generation by fuel, and system demand. The broader Pipeworx side also covers research, entity resolution, prediction-market analysis, memory, and subscriptions without obvious dead ends, though a few minor gaps exist such as limited non-npm dependency scanning and no direct Elexon-specific tools for every dataset family.

Resources