Skip to main content
Glama

Eodhd

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint. The description adds behavioral context: partial failures degrade gracefully, bundlephobia's first measurement can take 5-30 seconds, and sources_failed will list timeouts. This provides depth beyond the 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?

The description is dense yet well-structured, front-loaded with the core composite purpose, then detailing fans-out, usage, return structure, and limitations. Every sentence adds value; no fluff.

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 of two services), the description fully explains what it does, what it returns (including summary block, advisories, links, alternative versions), when to use, limitations (NPM only, bundlephobia latency), and error handling (partial failures). No output schema is provided, but the description compensates with detailed return structure.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description explains that version defaults to latest, but the schema already states this. No additional parameter semantics are provided beyond what the schema already captures.

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 covering license, advisories, version history, and bundle size. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying it's a one-call composite for npm packages, while other tools like 'deepl_research' are different. The verb 'scan dependency' is specific.

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 about safety, popularity, size of an npm package, or what adding lodash costs. Also notes that for non-NPM ecosystems, users should use deps.dev:version directly, providing clear alternatives and limitations.

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

All Eodhd 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tool clusters overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route research questions; polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, and bet_research all hunt prediction-market edges; ai_visibility_check and scan_competitor_ai_presence do nearly the same job. The verbose descriptions help, but an agent would still struggle to pick the right tool in these clusters.

Naming Consistency2/5

Everything is snake_case, but there is no coherent pattern: some names are verb_noun (compare_entities, validate_claim), some are bare verbs (remember, forget, recall), some are prefixed by domain (eodhd_*, pipeworx_*, polymarket_*, ai_visibility_*), and the Eodhd prefix clashes with the Pipeworx family. The conventions feel inherited from multiple unrelated codebases rather than a unified design.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is already heavy for most servers, but the real problem is that only 2 tools (eodhd_eod_prices, eodhd_fundamentals) relate to the server's stated purpose. The other 31 span Pipeworx research, Polymarket betting, memory, subscriptions, feedback, llms.txt generation, and npm dependency checking — a massively over-scoped grab bag for a server named 'Eodhd'.

Completeness2/5

For the nominal EODHD domain the surface is severely incomplete: no splits, dividends, options, exchanges list, or other standard EODHD endpoints — just prices and fundamentals. As a general research/data platform it is broad rather than deep, mixing a decent question-answering core with unrelated one-off utilities, so no single coherent lifecycle is fully covered.

Resources