Skip to main content
Glama

postcodes

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), the description reveals important runtime behaviors: fans out across two services, partial failure degradation, bundlephobia first-measurement latency (5-30s), and the sources_failed field. No contradiction 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

Description is front-loaded with the core purpose, then details the fan-out sources, return fields, success/failure behavior, and ecosystem scope. Every sentence carries unique information; it is long but efficient and well-structured.

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?

For a composite tool with no output schema, the description comprehensively covers inputs, outputs (summary fields, advisories, links, alternative versions), failure modes, timing, and scope. It is fully self-contained for an agent to decide and invoke.

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?

Input schema covers both parameters fully (package name, version) and the description mostly restates the schema's own descriptions (e.g., version defaults to latest). Since schema coverage is 100%, baseline is 3, and the description adds no additional parameter meaning.

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, with specific verb ('scan') and resource (dependency). It differentiates itself by listing the exact data sources and output fields, making it distinct from any sibling tool.

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 is X safe / popular / small'), and provides a clear exclusion for non-NPM ecosystems (use deps.dev:version directly). This gives the agent unambiguous guidance.

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

All postcodes 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

Many tools have overlapping responsibilities: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded all serve similar lookup purposes. entity_profile, compare_entities, and recent_changes all retrieve company data. Several Polymarket tools overlap in edge detection. The large number of tools with fuzzy boundaries makes it difficult for an agent to select the correct one.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names are a mix of conventions: some use verb_noun (lookup_postcode, validate_postcode, resolve_entity), others are verb_phrase (ask_pipeworx, deep_research, suggest_questions), and a few are compound (polymarket_arbitrage, scan_competitor_ai_presence). No uniform pattern, though the structure is readable.

Tool Count1/5

Despite being named 'postcodes', only 4 of 35 tools are directly about postcodes. The vast majority belong to a broad data platform (Pipeworx) with specialized tools for finance, betting, news, etc. The count is excessive for a focused service, and many tools are only useful for users of that platform, leading to clutter.

Completeness2/5

For a postcode server, the tools cover basic needs (lookup, nearest, random, validate). However, the server's actual scope is much larger; within that broader scope, there are notable gaps: no general text search, no direct access to raw SEC filings, and many tools depend on paid plans or external accounts. The coverage is uneven and incomplete for a unified data platform.

Resources