Skip to main content
Glama

Opensky

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral details: partial failures degrade gracefully, bundlephobia first measurement can take 5-30s, sources_failed lists timeouts, and it clearly states what the return structure includes (summary block, advisories, links, recent versions). No contradictions.

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 fronts the core purpose and is reasonably concise for a composite tool. It could be more structured (e.g., bullet points for returned fields) but avoids wordiness and every sentence adds value.

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 no output schema, the description thoroughly explains what is returned (summary fields, per-advisory detail, links, recent versions). It also covers error/partial behavior and ecosystem scope. Fully adequate for an agent to understand usage and results.

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 both parameters described (package name, version defaults to latest). The description adds that scoped packages are accepted but does not significantly expand beyond the schema. Baseline 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 the tool's purpose: a composite 'should I add this npm package' check combining deps.dev and bundlephobia data. It uses specific verbs ('fans out', 'returns') and distinguishes from sibling tools like deps.dev:version by noting 'NPM ecosystem only in v1; PyPI / Maven / Cargo / Go fall under deps.dev:version directly.'

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'.' Also specifies ecosystem limitations and refers alternatives for other ecosystems. Lacks explicit 'do not use when' guidance, so slightly below 5.

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

All Opensky 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have heavily overlapping entry points: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all take natural-language factual questions, and ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx right now. There is also overlap among get_states, get_aircraft, and airspace_activity, plus a large cluster of prediction-market tools with similar discovery purposes.

Naming Consistency4/5

The set is mostly snake_case and readable, with familiar patterns like get_*, list_*, resolve_*, and compare_*. It is not chaotic, but there are notable deviations: noun-phrase names like entity_profile, recent_changes, ai_visibility_check, and airspace_activity break the verb-first pattern.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is too many for a single coherent server, especially because they comprise several independent families: aviation, data/research, prediction markets, memory, and subscriptions. Each tool is individually justified, but the bundle should be split into smaller focused MCP servers.

Completeness3/5

The data-research side is fairly complete, with discover, routing, grounded verification, entity resolution, search-within, compare, and follow-up tools, and the subscription and memory lifecycles are covered. However, the OpenSky side is incomplete: get_flights explicitly cannot return its data, and referenced route/arrival/departure tools are missing from the set.

Resources