Skip to main content
Glama

Openweather

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. The description goes beyond by detailing partial failure behavior, timing of bundlephobia (5-30s), and the sources_failed field. This adds valuable behavioral context.

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 dense with information but well-structured, starting with the core purpose and then adding details. Every sentence serves a purpose without redundancy.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description fully details the return structure (summary block, per-advisory detail, links, alternatives) and covers edge cases like partial failures and ecosystem limitations. Complete for the tool's complexity.

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 the schema already describes both parameters adequately. The description adds context about accepting scoped packages and version defaulting to latest, which is already in the schema but reinforces 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 it's a composite check for npm packages, listing the services used (deps.dev and bundlephobia) and the specific aspects checked (license, advisories, size, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by its focused scope.

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 states when to use: 'Use whenever an agent asks "is X safe / popular / small" or "what does adding lodash cost me".' Also notes ecosystem limitations (NPM only in v1) and directs users to deps.dev directly for other ecosystems.

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

All Openweather 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes with detailed descriptions. However, 'ask_pipeworx' and 'ask_pipeworx_grounded' are very similar, and 'polymarket_arbitrage' and 'polymarket_edges' overlap in scope, which could cause confusion for an agent.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names mostly use snake_case but mix verb-first (e.g., 'compare_entities', 'resolve_entity') and noun-first (e.g., 'air_quality', 'entity_profile') patterns. Some names are single words ('forecast', 'geocode'), showing overall inconsistency.

Tool Count3/5

With 30 tools, the server covers many domains (weather, company info, betting, memory, subscriptions). While each tool serves a purpose, the count is on the higher side and could be streamlined, but it's not excessive given the diverse functionality.

Completeness4/5

The tool set provides comprehensive coverage for its domains: weather (current, forecast, air quality), company research (profile, compare, recent changes, validation), betting (research, arbitrage, edges), memory (CRUD), and subscriptions (CRUD). Minor gaps include no tool for editing subscriptions or deleting weather data, but these are outside the intended scope.

Resources