Skip to main content
Glama

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, open-world, and idempotent, but description adds substantial behavioral context: first bundlephobia measurement can take 5-30s, partial failures degrade gracefully, and sources_failed lists timed-out sources. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 long, but every sentence earns its place: purpose, use cases, return shape, ecosystem scope, and failure behavior. It is front-loaded with the main intent, though the middle section is a run-on that could be split for readability.

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 is provided, so the description compensates by listing the exact summary fields, per-advisory detail, links, and alternative versions. It also covers edge cases like partial failures and timeout behavior, making it complete for an agent to invoke and interpret 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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, including npm package name, scoped package support, and version defaulting behavior. The description does not add any new parameter-level details beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

Description clearly defines the tool as a composite 'should I add this npm package' check, naming the specific data sources (deps.dev, bundlephobia) and output fields. This distinguishes it from the sibling tools, none of which focus on 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 states when to use: whenever the agent asks about safety, popularity, size, or cost of adding a package. Also gives exclusion guidance (NPM only; other ecosystems fall under deps.dev:version directly), which helps route the agent correctly.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are currently identical, ask_pipeworx_grounded and validate_claim both perform claim verification, and polymarket_edges and polymarket_arbitrage both surface trading opportunities. While descriptions are detailed, the boundaries are fuzzy and agents could easily select the wrong tool.

Naming Consistency3/5

Naming mixes verb-first (search, subscribe, recall, validate_claim) with noun-first (dataset, facets, recent, entity_profile) conventions, and some names are just adjectives or nouns. Consistent prefixed groups exist (polymarket_*, ask_pipeworx_*), but the overall style is inconsistent and the server name 'Pangaea' doesn't align with the dominant 'pipeworx' prefix.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is excessive for a coherent set, especially given the server bundles unrelated domains (earth science, general data research, prediction markets, memory, utilities). Several tools are redundant (e.g., ask_pipeworx_beta duplicates ask_pipeworx), and many are niche (ai_visibility_check, generate_llms_txt, scan_dependency) that don't fit the apparent primary purpose.

Completeness3/5

The PANGAEA dataset surface covers search, retrieval by ID/DOI, recent, and facets, but lacks export or citation tools. The Pipeworx research tools are broad, but prediction market access has no simple market-price query (only analysis-oriented tools), and there are notable gaps in lifecycle coverage for some subdomains.