Skip to main content
Glama

Europeana

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Describes graceful degradation on partial failures and a 5-30s delay for new bundlephobia measurements, which adds value beyond the annotations that indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is informative but slightly long at 4-5 sentences. It is well-structured with purpose first, then usage, return details, scope, and failure behavior, so it earns a 4.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema is provided, but the description enumerates return fields, explains partial failure behavior, and scopes the tool appropriately. Minor missing details about advisory content, but overall adequate.

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 repeats the scoped package acceptance but does not add new meaning beyond the schema, justifying a baseline score of 3.

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 defines the tool as a composite check for npm packages, covering license, security, and size metrics. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying NPM-only scope and directing other ecosystems to alternative tools.

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 ('is X safe/popular/small' or 'what does adding lodash cost me') and notes that for PyPI/Maven/Cargo/Go, the user should use deps.dev:version directly, providing clear alternatives.

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

All Europeana 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

Many tools have overlapping purposes, e.g., three versions of ask_pipeworx for similar tasks, and several research/analysis tools (bet_research, deep_research, entity_profile) with unclear boundaries. The mix of Europeana-specific tools with a broad research toolkit creates confusion.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names are inconsistent, mixing snake_case (ai_visibility_check, ask_pipeworx), verb_noun patterns (compare_entities, resolve_entity), and short names (search, record, forget). No clear naming convention is followed throughout the set.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is excessive for a Europeana-focused server, as only 3 tools (search, record, search_within) are directly related to Europeana. The rest are a broad, unrelated toolkit, making the server feel like a kitchen sink rather than a cohesive collection.

Completeness2/5

The Europeana-specific tool surface is severely incomplete, lacking browse collections, advanced filters, or entity linking. The inclusion of many unrelated tools does not compensate for the gaps in the core domain, resulting in a poorly scoped offering.

Resources