Skip to main content
Glama

Space Feeds

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotations, the description discloses fan-out behavior, performance caveats ('first measurement on a new version can take 5-30s'), graceful degradation ('sources_failed will list it if it times out, the rest still returns'), and return structure. This gives the agent a full picture of what to expect during invocation. 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is information-dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, usage, return fields, ecosystem limit, and failure behavior. It is front-loaded with the composite check idea and logically structured, with no redundant or filler text.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully compensates by listing the exact summary block fields, per-advisory detail, links, and alternative versions. It also covers failure modes and timing. This is complete for an agent to invoke the tool and interpret results confidently.

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% for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema: it confirms package is an npm package name and version defaults to latest, but these are already in the schema. The example 'lodash' is usage context rather than parameter semantics.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Composite "should I add this npm package to my project" check in ONE call' and lists the exact data sources (deps.dev and bundlephobia) and what each contributes. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like validate_claim or deep_research, and even notes the NPM-only scope versus other ecosystems.

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?

It explicitly states when to use: 'Use whenever an agent asks "is X safe / popular / small" or "what does adding lodash cost me"'. It also gives a concrete alternative: 'PyPI / Maven / Cargo / Go fall under deps.dev:version directly', telling the agent 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 Space Feeds 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 occupy nearly the same niche: ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly an identical duplicate of ask_pipeworx when no experiment is active, and ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all overlap as question-answering entry points. Other families like entity_profile vs compare_entities vs recent_changes and ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence also blur together despite long disambiguating descriptions.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tool names use a clean, readable snake_case style, and there are strong prefix families like ask_pipeworx, polymarket_, list_, and scan_. However, the set is not uniformly verb_noun: entity_profile, deep_research, recent_alerts, pipeworx_trending, and several others are noun phrases rather than actions, so the pattern is mostly consistent but not strict.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well beyond the 25+ threshold where a server starts feeling bloated, and the server name 'Space Feeds' suggests a narrow niche while most of the surface is a general data research, prediction-market, memory, and subscription platform. Each tool may be useful, but as a set the scope is sprawling rather than focused.

Completeness4/5

The major workflows have good lifecycle coverage: data lookup and grounded verification, entity resolution and profiling, prediction-market analysis, memory (remember/recall/forget), subscriptions (subscribe/list/unsubscribe/recent_alerts), and feed reading (list/read/fetch) are all represented. Minor gaps include a direct pipeworx:// citation reader and feed curation or management operations, but agents can work around those.

Resources