Skip to main content
Glama

Federal Register

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds critical runtime details: partial failures degrade gracefully, bundlephobia's first measurement can take 5-30s, and failed sources are listed in 'sources_failed'. 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 without excessive verbosity. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and structured to cover details progressively. Minor tightening possible but overall efficient.

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 no output schema, the description enumerates all return fields (summary block, per-advisory detail, links, alternative versions) and explains limitations (NPM only, bundlephobia latency). It is complete enough for an agent to understand inputs, outputs, and edge cases.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by clarifying that scoped packages (e.g., '@types/node') are accepted and that 'version' defaults to latest, which helps the agent form correct invocations.

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 specifies a composite check for npm packages across deps.dev and bundlephobia with a clear verb-resource pair. It distinguishes from sibling tools by detailing the exact scope and data sources, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 the tool ('is X safe / popular / small?') and when not to (non-NPM ecosystems are directed to 'deps.dev:version directly'), providing clear decision support.

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

All Federal Register 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
Disambiguation1/5

Several tools are nearly indistinguishable: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical in behavior, and ask_pipeworx_grounded overlaps heavily with them. Additionally, entity_profile, compare_entities, deep_research, and validate_claim all cover similar company/factual research territory, creating frequent selection ambiguity.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming mixes multiple conventions: descriptive lowercase phrases (ai_visibility_check, compare_entities, valid claim) coexist with verb_noun (search_documents, recent_rules) and inconsistent underscores (ask_pipeworx vs ask_pipeworx_grounded, resolve_entity). There is no single recognizable pattern.

Tool Count1/5

The server is named 'Federal Register' but only 3 of 34 tools (search_documents, recent_rules, get_document) relate to that domain. The other 31 tools form a sprawling Pipeworx data and prediction-market suite, making the count extreme and inappropriate for the declared purpose.

Completeness2/5

For the stated Federal Register domain, the surface is minimal: search, recent listing, and single-document retrieval, with no docket browsing, full-text search within documents, or agency-specific navigation. The broader Pipeworx capability set is comprehensive but irrelevant to the server's name, leaving obvious gaps for the actual purpose.

Resources