Skip to main content
Glama

Textstats

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?

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: partial failures degrade gracefully, bundlephobia's first measurement may take 5-30 seconds, and sources_failed will list timeouts while the rest still returns. This goes beyond annotations and sets proper expectations for latency and failure handling.

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 well-structured and every sentence conveys distinct value: purpose, usage trigger, return format, ecosystem scope, and failure behavior. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and each additional sentence earns its place, making it informative without fluff.

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 thoroughly details the return shape (summary block fields, per-advisory detail, links, alternative versions), covers partial failure, latency, and ecosystem limitations. For a composite tool of this complexity, the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke and interpret results correctly.

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% and both parameters already have detailed descriptions (package accepts scoped names; version defaults to latest). The description adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 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 as a composite check for 'should I add this npm package to my project', explicitly naming the fan-out to deps.dev and bundlephobia with the specific data types returned. It distinguishes from alternatives by noting NPM-only scope and pointing to deps.dev:version for 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?

The description provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use whenever an agent asks "is X safe / popular / small"' and explains when NOT to use it (non-NPM packages go to deps.dev:version directly). This is clear, direct guidance for choosing this tool over alternatives.

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

All Textstats 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
Disambiguation3/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes, e.g., multiple ask_pipeworx variants, deep_research, and bet_research all serve data retrieval with subtle differences. The descriptions help distinguish them, but the sheer number of similar tools creates ambiguity.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names are mostly snake_case with a verb_noun pattern (e.g., resolve_entity, validate_claim). A few are nouns like 'readability' or 'text_stats', but the overall style is consistent and readable.

Tool Count2/5

With 33 tools, the server is overstuffed. The server name 'Textstats' suggests a narrow focus, but it covers diverse domains (Polymarket, SEC, memory, subscriptions), making it feel bloated and unfocused.

Completeness3/5

The tool set covers a wide range of data sources and actions, but there are notable gaps for a 'text stats' server—only two tools directly handle text analysis. Additionally, obvious operations like a simple stock quote tool are missing, relying on ask_pipeworx instead.

Resources