Skip to main content
Glama

Emdb

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?

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context about partial failures (bundlephobia first measurement takes 5-30s, sources_failed list) and ecosystem limitations, exceeding what annotations provide.

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 efficiently packs essential information without redundancy. It could be slightly more structured, but every sentence contributes value and the key details are front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (composite query, two data sources, partial failures), the description covers all critical aspects: return fields, failure behavior, ecosystem scope, and version defaults. No output schema exists, but the description compensates thoroughly.

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%, with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description does not add significant new information beyond the schema, meeting the baseline expectation but not exceeding it.

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 performs a composite check for npm packages, aggregating data from deps.dev and bundlephobia. It uses specific verbs like 'scan' and 'check', and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on npm dependency 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?

The description explicitly tells when to use the tool ('is it safe/popular/small?') and when not to (other ecosystems should use deps.dev directly). It also mentions graceful degradation and timeout behavior, providing clear usage context.

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

All Emdb 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 tool clusters have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-identical (the beta is explicitly the same right now); five polymarket_* tools all surface opportunity/edge information; entity_profile, compare_entities, and recent_changes all cover company research. The descriptions are detailed, but an agent can easily misselect between similar tools.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tool names use consistent snake_case and are descriptive, with clear prefix patterns for prediction-market tools (polymarket_*) and the router variants (ask_pipeworx_*). Some names are verb-noun while others are noun-phrases, but the convention is uniformly underscore-separated, with no camelCase or other mixing.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is excessive for a coherent server, and the scope is sprawled across EMDB access, Pipeworx data routing, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, and miscellaneous utilities. Even though each tool has a defined role, the sheer breadth and number make it feel like several servers' worth of functionality crammed into one.

Completeness2/5

The server's name suggests it should be focused on EMDB, but only two tools (get_map, search_maps) cover that domain — no browsing, filtering, or extended metadata beyond basic fields. Meanwhile, the bulk of the surface is devoted to unrelated Pipeworx/platform features. For the stated purpose, the coverage is severely incomplete.

Resources