Skip to main content
Glama

Oregon DMV

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint. The description adds details about partial failures degrading gracefully, bundlephobia first measurement taking 5-30s, and sources_failed listing if timeout occurs. 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Description is relatively long but packed with useful information. Well-structured: first sentence defines purpose, then lists return values, ecosystem limitations, failure mode. Could be slightly more concise but still effective.

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, but description explicitly lists all returned fields: summary block, per-advisory detail, links, list of recent alternative versions. Explains partial failures and timeouts. Very 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.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with good descriptions for both parameters. The description adds context: version defaults to latest when omitted, package accepts scoped names like '@types/node'. Adds value beyond 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's a composite check for adding npm packages, fanning out across deps.dev and bundlephobia. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being specific to npm dependency evaluation.

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 'Use whenever an agent asks "is X safe / popular / small" or "what does adding lodash cost me"' and mentions NPM-only limitation in v1, with fallback to other ecosystems via deps.dev:version.

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

All Oregon DMV 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 occupy the same functional space: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical right now, and the Polymarket cluster (polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, bet_research) heavily overlaps in purpose. The only clearly separated tools are the two DMV-specific ones, but they are drowned out by ambiguous data-query and prediction-market tools.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names mostly follow a predictable snake_case verb_noun pattern such as list_subscriptions, resolve_entity, validate_claim, and the polymarket_* / or_dmv_* prefixes are consistent. Minor deviations like bet_research, pipeworx_feedback, and ask_pipeworx_beta break the pattern slightly, but the overall style is coherent and readable.

Tool Count1/5

A server named 'Oregon DMV' exposes 33 tools, only 2 of which relate to DMV office locations and wait times. The other 31 tools form a broad general-purpose data and prediction-market platform, making the count and scope an extreme mismatch for the stated server identity.

Completeness1/5

For an Oregon DMV server, the surface is severely incomplete: there are no tools for appointments, forms, fees, licensing, registration, or services. The two DMV tools cover only office addresses and live wait times, covering a tiny slice of the domain implied by the server name.

Resources