Skip to main content
Glama

tarot

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. Added

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Despite readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses additional behavior: it fans out to two services, partial failures degrade gracefully, bundlephobia's first measurement can take 5-30s and sources_failed lists timeouts. This goes well beyond annotation hints.

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 all content serves a purpose: use-case, output contract, ecosystem boundary, and failure behavior. It could be trimmed slightly, but no filler is present.

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 enumerates the returned summary fields, per-advisory detail, links, and alternative versions. It also covers timeout and graceful degradation, leaving little ambiguity for a high-complexity composite tool.

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 already describes both params (package, version) at 100% coverage, so baseline 3 applies. Description adds that package is npm-only and scoped packages accepted, reinforcing schema semantics but not adding new syntax details.

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 and resource: 'Composite "should I add this npm package to my project" check in ONE call' and names the fan-out sources (deps.dev, bundlephobia). This makes the tool's function concrete and clearly distinct from generic scan 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?

'Use whenever an agent asks "is X safe / popular / small" or "what does adding lodash cost me"' provides explicit trigger conditions. It also states the limitation 'NPM ecosystem only in v1' and directs non-NPM packages to deps.dev:version directly, serving as a when-not guideline.

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

All tarot 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 overlap in purpose, notably the ask_pipeworx family (stable, beta, grounded all route identically) and random_card vs draw_cards for straightforward draws. The polymarket and research tools also share fuzzy boundaries that an agent could easily misroute.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names use snake_case and readable English, but the set mixes verb-led (ask_pipeworx, recall), noun-led (random_card, recent_alerts), and prefix-family names (polymarket_*, entity_*) with no single structural pattern. Readable but not cohesive.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is well above the typical well-scoped range and far more than a tarot-focused server would justify. The excess is externally provided Pipeworx functionality that dominates the tarot tools it sits over.

Completeness4/5

For the tarot domain, the set covers the full usage loop: getting, drawing, and searching cards are all present. The surrounding data/research/memory tools also cover their own domains exhaustively, with no obvious dead ends.

Resources