Skip to main content
Glama

Hathitrust

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 declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description goes beyond by detailing the composite nature (fans out to two external sources), partial failure behavior with graceful degradation, and a specific timing caveat for bundlephobia (5-30s on first measurement). This adds substantial context that annotations cannot convey.

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 dense but well-structured, front-loading the core purpose in the first sentence. It efficiently conveys usage, behavior, and output details without unnecessary words. A slight improvement would be to break into separate sentences for readability, but overall it is concise and informative.

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 there is no output schema, the description fully compensates by listing the return fields (summary block with specific keys, advisories, links, alternative versions). It also covers edge cases like partial failures and the sources_failed list. The tool is complex, but the description leaves no major gaps for an AI agent to understand what it returns and how it behaves.

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 (package and version). The description merely repeats the schema content (scoped packages accepted, version defaults to latest). No additional semantic value is added beyond what the input schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: a composite check for 'should I add this npm package?' that combines data from deps.dev and bundlephobia. It specifies the verb ('scan') and resource ('dependency' aka npm package), and distinguishes from siblings by noting the NPM-only ecosystem constraint.

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 is X safe / popular / small or what does adding lodash cost me'. Also provides clear exclusion: for other ecosystems (PyPI, Maven, etc.), use deps.dev:version directly. This gives excellent guidance on alternatives.

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

All Hathitrust 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The tool set mixes tools from multiple unrelated domains (HathiTrust, Pipeworx data platform, Polymarket, npm, etc.), making it unclear which tool to use for a given task. Overlap exists between ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded, and between several Polymarket tools, while the HathiTrust-specific tools are few and buried among many others, causing confusion.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are inconsistent across the tool set. Some tools use verb_noun (check_full_view, lookup_by_identifier), others use noun_verb (entity_profile, deep_research), and some are single verbs (forget, remember, subscribe). There is no predictable pattern, making it harder for an agent to guess tool names.

Tool Count1/5

With 33 tools, the count is high, but only 3 (get_record, lookup_by_identifier, check_full_view) are relevant to the server's stated purpose (HathiTrust). The remaining 30 tools appear to be from unrelated domains (Pipeworx data platform, Polymarket, npm, etc.), making the tool count severely mismatched with the server name.

Completeness2/5

For the HathiTrust domain, the tool surface is severely incomplete: only three basic lookup tools with no search, browse, or management capabilities. The broader set includes tools for many other domains, but that does not compensate for the lack of coverage of the server's primary purpose.

Resources