Skip to main content
Glama

Skiddle

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?

Adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: mentions partial failure degradation, bundlephobia's first measurement can take 5-30s, and that sources_failed will list timeouts. Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive.

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?

Description is longer but each sentence adds important detail. It front-loads the core purpose and then provides structured output and edge-case info. Could be slightly trimmed but not excessive.

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 lacking an output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return structure (summary block fields, per-advisory detail, links, alternative versions) and partial failure behavior. Extremely complete for a tool with only two parameters.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters (package and version). Description adds minimal extra meaning beyond schema, such as mentioning 'scoped packages accepted' which is already in schema. Schema does the heavy lifting.

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 composite nature of the tool for checking npm packages across deps.dev and bundlephobia, listing specific aspects like license, advisories, bundle size, etc. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on a specific npm package evaluation.

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: 'Use whenever an agent asks "is X safe / popular / small" or "what does adding lodash cost me"'. Also notes ecosystem limitation (NPM only) 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 Skiddle 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
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools have clearly distinct roles, but the ask_pipeworx / ask_pipeworx_beta / ask_pipeworx_grounded / deep_research cluster overlaps heavily as question-answering and research entry points, with ask_pipeworx_beta currently being an exact duplicate of ask_pipeworx. The prediction-market tools are individually differentiated but numerous enough that selecting the right one requires careful reading.

Naming Consistency4/5

The set is predominantly snake_case and mostly readable, with sensible prefixes like ask_, search_, polymarket_, and scan_. However, conventions mix verb-first names (remember, subscribe, validate_claim), noun-style names (categories, event, entity_profile), and adjective-noun names (recent_alerts, recent_changes), so the pattern is not fully uniform.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well above the 25-tool threshold where a server starts to feel heavy, and many could be consolidated (7+ prediction-market tools, 4+ overlapping ask/research tools, plus memory and subscription helpers). The breadth is somewhat justified by the Pipeworx data platform, but the surface is still overloaded for a single server.

Completeness4/5

For the broad data/research domain, coverage is strong: lookup, grounded verification, deep research, entity profiles, comparisons, change feeds, tool discovery, memory, and subscription lifecycle all have coherent coverage. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit tool to read a pipeworx:// citation URI directly and a fairly thin Skiddle events side beyond search/detail/categories.

Resources