Skip to main content
Glama

Performance Review

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false. Description adds valuable context: bundlephobia's first measurement can take 5-30s, partial failures degrade gracefully with sources_failed field, and NPM-only restriction. 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 is detailed but well-organized, with key information upfront (composite check, sources) followed by specifics. Could be slightly more concise, but every sentence adds value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description clearly lists the return fields (summary block, advisories, links, alternatives) and explains failure modes. Covers all necessary aspects for a tool of this 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% with descriptions. Description adds useful context: scoped packages accepted, version defaults to latest, and explains the composite nature. 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 the tool is a composite check for evaluating npm packages, combining multiple data sources. It specifies the purpose as answering questions about safety, popularity, and size, and distinguishes from siblings by limiting to npm ecosystem in v1.

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 tells when to use (agent asks about adding an npm package) and when not to use (other ecosystems should use deps.dev:version directly). Also mentions partial failures and timeout behavior.

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

All Performance Review 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
Disambiguation3/5

Several tools occupy adjacent territory: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all answer questions with only subtle differences in grounding and breadth, and discover_tools overlaps with suggest_questions. The prediction-market tools (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread, bet_research) each have distinct mechanics but a less careful agent could easily misfire between them.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, generate_llms_txt, list_subscriptions), but there are notable exceptions: performance_review_generate reverses the order, entity_profile is noun_noun, and recall/remember/forget are bare verbs. The pipeworx_ and polymarket_ prefixes help group families, but the mixed styles prevent a higher score.

Tool Count2/5

At 32 tools this is a heavy surface for one MCP server, exceeding the 25+ threshold where agents struggle to discover and choose among options. The breadth is understandable given the many subdomains (data lookups, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, feedback), but the count still feels like tool sprawl rather than a tightly scoped set.

Completeness4/5

As a data/research/prediction-market platform the surface is remarkably complete: query, grounded verification, deep research, entity resolution, comparisons, claim validation, visibility audits, subscriptions, memory, and feedback loops are all covered. Minor gaps exist—there is no direct tool for bulk exports or for editing subscriptions, and some meta-tools duplicate discovery—but agents can accomplish the core workflows without dead ends.

Resources