Skip to main content
Glama

Hibp

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. Added

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: composite call, 5-30s delay on first measurement, partial failures with sources_failed list. Annotations indicate readOnly and idempotent, which are consistent.

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 a single paragraph but dense with information. It front-loads the core purpose and adds necessary details efficiently. Slightly long but every sentence earns its place.

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 complexity of a composite tool and no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns (summary block, advisories, links, alternatives) and handles partial failures. It is complete.

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 description coverage is 100% and already explains the parameters. The description adds no new parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so 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 states it is a composite check for npm packages, aggregating deps.dev and bundlephobia data. It uses specific verbs ('should I add') and distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the ecosystem and the multi-source nature.

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 says when to use ('is X safe / popular / small') and provides alternatives for other ecosystems. Also mentions timeout behavior and graceful degradation, guiding when to expect delays.

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

All Hibp 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

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, and the long, detailed descriptions make it easy for an agent to pick the right one. However, there is some functional overlap between research-oriented tools (e.g., ask_pipeworx vs deep_research vs bet_research) and between visibility-checking tools (ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence), which could potentially confuse an agent without careful reading.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names are uniformly lowercase with underscores, and related tools share consistent prefixes (e.g., polymarket_*, ask_pipeworx, check_*). While most follow a verb_noun pattern, some are noun-first (entity_profile, polymarket_arbitrage) or compound (scan_competitor_ai_presence), creating minor inconsistency, but overall the naming is readable and not chaotic.

Tool Count4/5

With 37 tools, the count is on the higher end but appropriate for a broad data/research platform that covers HIBP breaches, multiple data-pull/research modes, Polymarket analytics, memory, subscriptions, and meta-tools. The number is justified by the diversity of capabilities, though it exceeds the typical 3-15 range for a narrowly-scoped server.

Completeness5/5

The tool set appears thorough for its intended scope: HIBP breach lookup is fully covered (check_account, check_password, get_breach, list_breaches, list_data_classes), research and entity resolution are extensive (entity_profile, compare_entities, deep_research, validate_claim, etc.), Polymarket has dedicated arbitrage/edge/fill-risk tools, and memory/subscription/meta capabilities are present. No obvious gaps for the stated functionality.

Resources