Skip to main content
Glama

Sgd

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: 'Partial failures degrade gracefully', specific timeout (5-30s for bundlephobia), and that sources_failed will list timeouts. 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 reasonably concise given the tool's complexity. It front-loads the main purpose and organizes information logically (what it does, when to use, limitations, behavior). Could be slightly more compact 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 the complexity of the tool, no output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, inputs, behavior on failure, ecosystem scope, and output structure. It leaves no major gaps for an agent to understand how to use this tool effectively.

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 good descriptions for both parameters. The description adds clarity that scoped packages are accepted and reiterates the default version behavior, but does not add entirely new semantic information beyond what the schema already provides.

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 it's a composite check for npm packages, fanning out across deps.dev and bundlephobia. It uses specific verbs ('Scan Dependency') and resources ('npm package', 'deps.dev', 'bundlephobia'), and is distinct from all sibling tools which cover other domains like research, betting, or tool discovery.

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 it ('is X safe / popular / small' or 'what does adding lodash cost me') and provides a clear alternative for non-npm ecosystems ('PyPI / Maven / Cargo / Go fall under deps.dev:version directly').

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

All Sgd 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (explicitly identical today), ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all route factual questions through similar pipelines. The polymarket_* cluster also blurs together, with arbitrage, edges, fill_risk, kalshi_spread, and bet_research all analyzing prediction-market mispricings from different angles.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names use consistent snake_case, but the verb/noun pattern is mixed: some are verb-first (compare_entities, generate_llms_txt, validate_claim), others noun-first (polymarket_edges, entity_profile, ai_visibility_check), and some are bare product names (ask_pipeworx, pipeworx_trending). Readable overall, but no single predictable convention.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is far too many for a coherent server, especially since the server is named 'Sgd' but only 3 tools relate to yeast genetics. The remaining 31 tools span data lookup, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, npm scanning, and llms.txt generation—an unfocused grab bag that should be split into multiple servers.

Completeness2/5

As an SGD yeast-genome server, the surface is thin: search, get_gene, and get_gene_go cover basic lookup but miss sequences, interactions, strains, homologs, and other standard SGD data. As a general data utility, the collection is broad but incoherent, with several one-off tools (generate_llms_txt, scan_dependency) that have no connection to the rest.

Resources