Skip to main content
Glama

Revternal

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. First observed

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds important behavioral details: partial failures degrade gracefully, bundlephobia first measurement can take 5-30s, and sources_failed will list timed-out sources. 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single paragraph but well-structured with purpose first, then usage, then return fields, then limitations. It is slightly long but each sentence provides value; could be more concise but still effective.

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 no output schema, the description fully explains the return value including summary fields (is_latest, license, etc.), per-advisory details, links, and alternative versions. It also covers behavior on failure and NPM-only scope, making the tool's behavior predictable.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both 'package' and 'version'. The description adds extra semantics: scoped packages are accepted, and version defaults to latest when omitted, which is not in the 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 evaluating npm packages combining deps.dev and bundlephobia data. It uses specific verbs ('fans out across') and resource nouns, and the sibling list does not contain any similar tools, so it is well-distinguished.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use whenever an agent asks "is X safe / popular / small" or "what does adding lodash cost me"'. It also specifies the NPM-only scope in v1 and directs users to deps.dev:version for other ecosystems, effectively telling when not to use this tool.

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

All Revternal 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Several tool families (ask_pipeworx variants, polymarket analysis tools) have overlapping purposes, which could confuse an agent. However, descriptions are detailed and help differentiate them in most cases.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tool names use snake_case and are descriptive, but prefixes vary (ask_, polymarket_, revternal_, etc.) and some verbs are standalone (forget, recall, remember), breaking a strict verb_noun pattern.

Tool Count3/5

35 tools is on the high side, but the scope is broad (data research, prediction markets, developer intel). Some redundancy (multiple ask_pipeworx modes) could be consolidated, making the set feel slightly heavy.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers core CRUD for data, memory, subscriptions, and analytics. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no file upload, limited account management), but the domain is well-served.

Resources