Skip to main content
Glama

Pkg Go Dev

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description goes beyond by detailing the return structure (summary block, per-advisory detail, links, alternative versions) and disclosing potential timing issues ('bundlephobia's first measurement... can take 5-30s') and how failures are reported.

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 concise at about 5 sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded. Every sentence adds new information, but there is minor redundancy (e.g., 'NPM ecosystem only' is repeated in both context and fallback). Still, well-structured overall.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (composite check across multiple sources, partial failures), the description is complete: it lists all return fields, explains failure behavior, and notes version ranges. With no output schema, the description fully conveys what the agent can expect.

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?

The input schema covers both parameters with descriptions (package and version). The description adds useful context: scoped packages are accepted, and version defaults to latest when omitted. This adds value beyond the schema, though schema coverage was already 100%.

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 starts with 'Composite should I add this npm package to my project check in ONE call', clearly stating the tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting the NPM-only scope and directing to alternative tools for other ecosystems.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use whenever an agent asks is X safe / popular / small or what does adding lodash cost me'. It also provides guidance on alternatives for non-NPM packages and mentions graceful handling of partial failures.

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

All Pkg Go Dev 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

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools have overlapping purposes, such as ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded all performing similar data lookups. Additionally, many tools focus on prediction markets and arbitrage, which are unrelated to the server's implied Go development domain, causing confusion.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names follow inconsistent conventions: some use snake_case (e.g., 'latest_version', 'list_versions'), some use underscores in longer names (e.g., 'ai_visibility_check', 'ask_pipeworx_grounded'), and some use colons in descriptions but not in names. This mix reduces predictability.

Tool Count2/5

With 35 tools, the count is high for a server named 'Pkg Go Dev' that only offers a few Go module-related tools (e.g., get_go_mod, list_versions). The majority are unrelated Pipeworx tools, making the scope mismatched and excessive.

Completeness1/5

The tool set severely lacks coverage for Go development tasks. It only includes basic module lookup tools (version listing, mod retrieval) but misses essential operations like dependency analysis, build commands, or testing. The vast majority of tools cover unrelated domains (prediction markets, company profiles, etc.), leaving the server incomplete for its intended purpose.

Resources