Skip to main content
Glama

Solscan

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

A4.4/5.0
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 context: partial failures degrade gracefully, bundlephobia's first measurement can take 5-30s, and sources_failed will list timeouts. 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 front-loaded with the core purpose and well-structured. It contains multiple sentences but each adds essential information (ecosystem scope, partial failure behavior). Could be slightly tighter but still concise.

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 comprehensively lists return fields (summary block with specific keys, per-advisory detail, links, alternative versions) and explains partial failure behavior. This fully compensates for missing output schema.

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 description coverage is 100%. The description adds marginal value beyond the schema: it mentions default version behavior (already in schema) and confirms scoped packages are accepted. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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, aggregating data from deps.dev and bundlephobia. It specifies the resource (npm package) and the action (scan_dependency), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like deps.dev:version by noting ecosystem scope.

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?

The description explicitly tells when to use ('is X safe / popular / small' or 'what does adding lodash cost me') and when not to use (PyPI/Maven etc. fall under deps.dev:version directly), providing clear alternatives.

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

All Solscan 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools are near-duplicates: ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly described as currently identical to ask_pipeworx, and multiple prediction-market tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage) overlap in purpose. The Solana-specific tools are distinct, but the large non-Solana cluster creates real ambiguity.

Naming Consistency3/5

All tools use snake_case, but naming styles vary widely: get_/list_ verbs, ask_pipeworx family, polymarket_* cluster, and descriptive noun-style names like entity_profile, validate_claim, generate_llms_txt, scan_dependency. There is no single consistent verb_noun convention across the set.

Tool Count1/5

With 36 tools, the count is high, but the critical problem is scope mismatch: a server named Solscan has only 5 Solana-related tools, while 31 are unrelated data/research/prediction-market utilities. This makes the tool count inappropriate for the apparent purpose.

Completeness2/5

As a Solana explorer, the set covers only account details, token holdings, token metadata, transactions, and transfers; major gaps include blocks, token price/history, NFTs, programs/staking, and more comprehensive transfer history. For the broader data-research theme, coverage is broad but scattered and lacks a single coherent domain.

Resources