Skip to main content
Glama

Statcan

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnly, idempotent), description discloses performance characteristics (5-30s bundlephobia delay), partial failure handling (sources_failed list), and graceful degradation. 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 information-dense without unnecessary words, but could be structured into clearer sections (e.g., bullet points for return fields). Still efficient overall.

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 fully details the response structure (summary block, per-advisory, links, alternative versions) and edge cases (partial failures, timeout handling). Complete for a complex aggregation tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema has 100% coverage, and description adds meaningful details: scoped packages (@types/node) are accepted, version defaults to latest. This adds value beyond parameter 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 the composite npm package check, explicitly listing data sources (deps.dev, bundlephobia) and the decision context ('should I add this npm package'). It distinguishes from siblings which are broader research or validation tools.

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?

Provides explicit use cases ('is X safe / popular / small') and warns about ecosystem limitations ('NPM ecosystem only in v1'). Directly guides agent when to use and when to avoid, referencing alternative tools 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 Statcan 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools are near-duplicates: ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx right now, ask_pipeworx_grounded is the same router with an extra extraction pass, and deep_research/ask_pipeworx overlap for broad questions. The prediction-market tools and the StatCan series/cube/indicator tools also have fuzzy boundaries despite their detailed descriptions.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names consistently use snake_case, but the set mixes verb-first names (resolve_entity, validate_claim, subscribe) with domain-prefixed noun-first names (statcan_*, polymarket_*, pipeworx_*) and one-off names like ai_visibility_check and generate_llms_txt. The domain prefixes help navigation, but there is no single predictable pattern and the ask_pipeworx_* suffix variants break the prefix convention.

Tool Count2/5

38 tools is well beyond the 25+ threshold, and the server named Statcan carries only 8 StatCan-specific tools alongside general Pipeworx routing, prediction-market analysis, AI visibility, dependency scanning, memory, and subscription features. This feels like several servers merged into one rather than a well-scoped StatCan interface.

Completeness4/5

Within the apparent StatCan data-access scope, the surface is solid: listing cubes, metadata, cube data, vector series, headline indicators, CSV URLs, and change detection cover the core workflows. The broader Pipeworx/analysis layers also include discovery, grounded lookups, entity resolution, validation, subscriptions, and memory, with only minor gaps like server-side StatCan search and no way to execute on prediction-market signals.

Resources