Skip to main content
Glama

Lobsters

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds context about composite fan-out, partial failures, bundlephobia timeout, and sources_failed listing.

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. It starts with the main composite purpose, then details usage, returns, and limitations. Could be slightly shorter but remains 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?

No output schema exists, so description compensates by detailing the return summary block fields (is_latest, license, etc.), per-advisory detail, links, recent alternative versions, and graceful handling of partial failures.

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 description coverage is 100% and provides clear descriptions for both parameters. The description adds helpful context like scoped packages and defaulting to latest version, going beyond the schema.

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, combining deps.dev and bundlephobia. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the ecosystem (NPM only) and the exact purpose (safety, popularity, size).

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 it (e.g., 'is X safe / popular / small') and notes that other ecosystems (PyPI, Maven, etc.) should use deps.dev:version directly. Also mentions partial failures and graceful degradation.

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

All Lobsters 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

Many tools have overlapping purposes, e.g., three tools for querying Pipeworx data (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research), and six tools for Polymarket prediction markets. The boundaries between them are unclear, causing potential for misselection.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names are all snake_case but follow inconsistent patterns: some use verb_noun (get_hottest, get_newest), some are single verbs (remember, forget), and others are noun_noun (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage). While readable, the lack of a consistent pattern adds confusion.

Tool Count2/5

With 34 tools, the server is overloaded, especially given its name 'Lobsters' suggests a focus on that site, yet only 4 tools are Lobsters-related. The majority belong to Pipeworx, Polymarket, and generic utilities, making the scope extremely broad and unfocused.

Completeness2/5

For the implied domain of Lobsters, the tool set is incomplete (missing create/update/delete). For the broader domains (Pipeworx, Polymarket), the set is extensive but doesn't align with the server's name. The lack of a coherent domain leaves obvious gaps relative to any single purpose.

Resources