Skip to main content
Glama

Paypal

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. Added

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint true, and destructiveHint false. Description adds valuable behavioral context: composite call with fan-out, partial failure degradation, bundlephobia timeout of 5-30s, and sources_failed reporting. This goes well beyond 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?

Well-structured with key purpose first, then usage, then details. Slightly long but every sentence adds value. Could be tightened slightly for conciseness but still efficient.

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 no output schema, description thoroughly explains return structure: summary block with fields, per-advisory detail, links, and alternative versions. Also covers partial failures and fallback behavior, making it complete for agent understanding.

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 clear descriptions for both parameters. Description adds that version is optional and scoped packages are accepted, but this is minimal additional value beyond 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?

Description clearly states it's a composite check for npm packages covering license, advisories, version history, and bundle size. It uses specific verbs like 'scan' and 'check', and distinguishes itself from siblings which are unrelated to package scanning.

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 an agent asks about safety, popularity, size, or cost of adding an npm package. It also notes NPM-only in v1 and directs other ecosystems to deps.dev:version directly, providing clear alternative guidance.

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

All Paypal 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 overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route broad factual questions; ai_visibility_check and scan_competitor_ai_presence overlap heavily; and the Polymarket tools blur into each other. The five PayPal tools are distinct, but the rest of the set has real boundary ambiguity.

Naming Consistency4/5

Names are almost entirely snake_case and mostly follow a verb_noun or domain_prefix pattern (paypal_*, pipeworx_*, polymarket_*). Minor deviations like entity_profile, recent_alerts, and pipeworx_feedback are noun-phrase style, but the overall convention is predictable and readable.

Tool Count1/5

A server named 'Paypal' exposes 36 tools, only five of which relate to PayPal. The remaining 31 are a grab bag of Pipeworx data lookups, Polymarket betting tools, memory helpers, and subscription utilities. This is an extreme scope mismatch for the apparent domain.

Completeness2/5

The PayPal surface is read-only: it can list/get invoices, list transactions, list disputes, and get an order, but has no create, update, send, capture, refund, or dispute-response operations. Even if the unrelated tools are ignored, a meaningful PayPal workflow is left incomplete.

Resources