Skip to main content
Glama

Notion_connect

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?

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.), the description adds key behavioral details: fans out across multiple services, partial failures degrade gracefully, bundlephobia first measurement can take 5-30s, and sources_failed will list it if it times out. No contradictions with annotations.

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 multi-sentence but every sentence adds value. It front-loads the purpose and use case, then details the return fields and edge cases. No fluff or redundancies.

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 tool's complexity (composite check, no output schema), the description is remarkably complete. It lists the summary block fields, per-advisory details, links, and alternative versions. It also explains partial failure behavior and timing, leaving the agent well-informed about what to expect.

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 marginal value by reiterating that version defaults to latest when omitted and that scoped packages are accepted. This is helpful but largely duplicates the schema. Still, it confirms understanding.

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 npm packages, combining deps.dev and bundlephobia data. It specifies the use case: answering if a package is safe, popular, or small. The title 'Scan Dependency' aligns well. No sibling tool has similar functionality, so it's distinctive.

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?

The description explicitly says 'Use whenever an agent asks "is X safe / popular / small" or "what does adding lodash cost me"', providing concrete examples. It also states 'NPM ecosystem only in v1; PyPI / Maven / Cargo / Go fall under deps.dev:version directly', indicating when not to use this tool.

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

All Notion_connect 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

Several tools have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route questions to the same 5,708 tools, with beta explicitly described as currently identical to the stable version. Prediction-market tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage) also blur together, and the Notion tools are a small island in a sea of unrelated Pipeworx utilities.

Naming Consistency3/5

The names are uniformly lowercase with underscores, but conventions are mixed: some use verb-first patterns (ask_pipeworx, generate_llms_txt, scan_dependency), others are noun-phrases (entity_profile, recent_changes, polymarket_edges), and domain prefixes are inconsistent (notion_*, polymarket_*, pipeworx_*, but bare bet_research, compare_entities, recall). It is readable but lacks a coherent naming scheme.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is already heavy, but the bigger issue is scope: the server is named Notion_connect yet only 5 of 36 tools relate to Notion. The rest span data research, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, AI visibility, npm auditing, and llms.txt generation — a grab bag far beyond any single purpose, with multiple redundant meta-tools inflating the count.

Completeness2/5

As a Notion connector it is severely incomplete: there is no create/update/delete for pages or databases, and no way to write content back to Notion — only read/search/query operations. For the broader Pipeworx surface, the tool set is sprawling but unfocused, so it is hard to identify a coherent domain where coverage could be considered complete.

Resources