Skip to main content
Glama

Json

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

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds critical behavioral details: partial failure degradation, bundlephobia's first measurement taking 5-30s, and the sources_failed field. This goes beyond the structured annotations.

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 dense paragraph containing all essential information: purpose, usage, limitations, and return structure. Every sentence contributes value, but it could be slightly restructured for clarity (e.g., bullet points). Efficient overall.

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?

No output schema exists, so description bears full burden. It lists all return fields (summary block fields, per-advisory detail, links, alternative versions) and explains partial failure behavior. This is fully sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool returns.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description repeats the package name scoping and version defaults already present in the schema, adding no new parametric meaning. Agent gets no extra value from description regarding parameters.

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 the tool is a composite check for adding npm packages, combining data from deps.dev and bundlephobia. It specifies the exact purpose: evaluating safety, popularity, size, and cost. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'entity_profile' which are more general.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says 'Use whenever an agent asks "is X safe / popular / small" or "what does adding lodash cost me"' and notes the NPM-only limitation for v1. While it doesn't name an alternative tool for other ecosystems, it indirectly points to deps.dev for those. This is clear context but lacks explicit exclusion.

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

All Json 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

A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, from querying data (ask_pipeworx) to entity profiling (entity_profile) to prediction market analysis (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges). Even similar tools like deep_research and ask_pipeworx are differentiated by scope (single vs. multi-facet). There is no ambiguity.

Naming Consistency4/5

The vast majority of tools use snake_case (e.g., validate_claim, compare_entities). However, a few tools are single words (forget, recall, remember, subscribe, unsubscribe) which breaks the pattern slightly. This is a minor inconsistency.

Tool Count4/5

With 33 tools, the set is on the larger side but well-justified by the broad scope of the server (data querying, entity research, prediction markets, JSON utilities, subscriptions, etc.). Each tool serves a specific need, making the count appropriate.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers virtually all expected operations for the domain: querying, profiling, comparison, change tracking, validation, discovery, subscriptions, memory, and utilities. No obvious gaps are present for the intended use case of accessing Pipeworx data and related tasks.

Resources