Skip to main content
Glama

Gdelt

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.

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Discloses partial failure behavior, timing caveats (5-30s initial measurement for bundlephobia), and graceful degradation. This adds significant context beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) which already label it safe.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: starts with the core purpose, then usage guidance, return details, limitations, and failure behavior. Every sentence adds value without repetition or 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?

The tool has no output schema, but the description fully details the return fields (summary block, advisories, links, versions) and covers edge cases (partial failures, timing). This provides complete understanding for an agent.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra value by clarifying that scoped packages (e.g., '@types/node') are accepted and providing concrete version examples (e.g., '18.3.1'). This slightly improves usability beyond the schema alone.

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, combining deps.dev and bundlephobia data. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing specifically on npm package evaluation, and the verb 'scan' plus resource 'dependency' aligns well.

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: for questions about safety, popularity, size, or cost of adding an npm package. Also specifies NPM ecosystem only and points to deps.dev:version for other ecosystems, giving clear when-not guidance.

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

All Gdelt 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Several families overlap heavily—ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (explicitly identical today), ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all answer natural-language questions—and the five polymarket_* tools all circle around detecting or trading edges. However, detailed descriptions and distinct scopes (single vs multi-part vs grounded vs claim verdict, scan vs arbitrage vs fill risk) keep most boundaries usable.

Naming Consistency4/5

Names are uniformly snake_case and mostly follow a clear verb_noun or resource pattern (search_articles, compare_entities, list_subscriptions, remember/recall/forget). Minor deviations exist—ask_pipeworx has no underscore and some names are product-prefixed (pipeworx_trending, polymarket_edges)—but the overall pattern is still predictable.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is well above the 25+ threshold, and the set spans unrelated domains—GDELT news, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, npm dependency scanning, and llms.txt generation—so it feels like several servers mashed together rather than one coherent scope.

Completeness4/5

As a broad read-only data/research toolkit, coverage is strong: ask_pipeworx routes to thousands of sources, entity/compare/recent_changes/validate cover lookups, memory lifecycle is complete, and subscriptions have create/list/read/cancel. Minor gaps exist—no article-level GDELT aggregates beyond the four news tools and no direct update/delete for llms.txt—but there are no critical dead ends.

Resources