Skip to main content
Glama

Remoteok

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.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false. The description adds valuable behavioral details: partial failures degrade gracefully, bundlephobia timing delay, and sources_failed field. This goes beyond annotations, earning a 4.

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 dense but well-organized, covering purpose, usage, behavior, and output in one paragraph. Could benefit from bullet points for readability, but it is appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description explains the output structure (summary block, per-advisory detail, links, alternatives). It also mentions partial failures and ecosystem scope. This is fairly complete for a complex tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds that version defaults to latest, but package parameter details are already in schema. No significant additional meaning 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's purpose: a composite check for adding an npm package to a project, covering license, advisories, version history, and bundle size. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly limiting to NPM ecosystem and mentioning 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?

Explicitly states when to use the tool, such as when an agent asks 'is X safe/popular/small' or 'what does adding lodash cost me'. Also specifies limitations (NPM only in v1) and directs to deps.dev:version for other ecosystems.

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

All Remoteok 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
Disambiguation2/5

Several tool clusters have fuzzy boundaries: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all answer questions through the same routing layer, while polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, and bet_research all address prediction-market edges. Even with detailed descriptions, an agent can easily select the wrong variant.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are uniformly lowercase snake_case and many follow a verb_noun pattern (list_jobs, search_jobs, resolve_entity, validate_claim), but there are numerous noun-first and adjective-first exceptions (entity_profile, recent_alerts, pipeworx_trending, polymarket_arbitrage) plus bare verbs (remember, forget, recall, subscribe). The pattern is readable but not consistently applied.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well above the well-scoped range, and the vast majority are not about the server's RemoteOK namesake. The set appears to merge several distinct domains (Pipeworx data research, Polymarket betting, RemoteOK jobs, memory utilities) into one oversized surface, making it feel more like a bundled platform than a focused server.

Completeness4/5

For the dominant Pipeworx/data-research theme, coverage is strong: question answering, grounded verification, entity profiles, comparisons, change feeds, discovery, memory, subscriptions, and citation-based research are all present. The RemoteOK job subset covers list/search/get without obvious dead ends. Minor gaps exist (no direct citation-URI fetcher, no job alert subscriptions), but agents can work around them.

Resources