Skip to main content
Glama

Simap

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds critical behavioral context: bundlephobia's first measurement can take 5-30s, partial failures degrade gracefully, and sources_failed field is included. 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 a single dense paragraph, but every sentence adds value. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for return fields), but it is not verbose.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description thoroughly lists return fields: summary block, per-advisory detail, links, and alternative versions. It also addresses edge cases (partial failures, timing) and scope limitations. Complete for the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters documented. The description clarifies that scoped packages are accepted for 'package' and that 'version' defaults to latest when omitted. This adds minor value beyond 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 it is a composite check for npm packages covering license, advisories, version history, and bundle size. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying 'NPM ecosystem only' and noting that other ecosystems are handled by a different 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 says 'Use whenever an agent asks 'is X safe / popular / small' or 'what does adding lodash cost me'. Also specifies limitations: only npm in v1, with clear alternatives for other package managers.

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

All Simap 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

There are several tools with overlapping query responsibilities: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-variants of the same router, and bet_research, polymarket_edges, and polymarket_arbitrage all target prediction-market opportunity discovery. An agent must read the long descriptions carefully to distinguish them, and some variants are behaviorally identical today.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are readable snake_case, but the verb_noun convention is not consistently applied: some are clean verb phrases like validate_claim and discover_tools, while others are noun phrases like entity_profile, recent_alerts, or simap_project. The prefixed groups (polymarket_*, pipeworx_*) help, but the overall naming style is mixed.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is above the heavy range, and the set is inflated by redundant router variants, five overlapping Polymarket tools, and loosely related utilities like generate_llms_txt and scan_dependency. The server is named Simap but only three tools relate to Swiss procurement, making the scope feel bloated and misaligned.

Completeness4/5

For an information-retrieval-style server, the core workflows are well covered: discovery, routing, grounded answers, entity resolution, profiles, comparisons, fact-checking, subscriptions, and memory. The main gaps are minor, such as updating a subscription in place or deeper native Simap-specific actions, and those can be worked around.

Resources