Skip to main content
Glama

Thesportsdb

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

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description adds behavioral details: fans out to two services, returns summary and per-advisory detail, and notes potential 5-30s delay on bundlephobia first measurement. No contradictions.

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 relatively long but all sentences add value (use case, return fields, partial failure behavior). It is front-loaded with the main purpose.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description fully explains the return format (summary block fields, per-advisory detail, alternative versions) and error behavior (sources_failed list). This is sufficient for a read-only 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 description coverage is 100% – both parameters are described in the schema. The description only reiterates schema info (scoped packages, version default) without adding new semantic meaning.

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 it is a composite check for evaluating npm packages using deps.dev and bundlephobia. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., scan_competitor_ai_presence) by focusing on package quality assessment.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly states when to use: when an agent asks about safety, popularity, size, or cost of adding a package. Notes NPM-only scope and mentions partial failures, but does not exclude specific alternatives.

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

All Thesportsdb 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

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The sports tools are distinct, but the majority of the set has heavy overlap: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, discover_tools, and suggest_questions all serve as query/entry-point tools, with ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta explicitly identical. The Polymarket family (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) also blurs together.

Naming Consistency2/5

The sports subset follows a clean verb_noun pattern (get_player, list_leagues, search_teams), but the rest mixes several naming schemes: ask_pipeworx*, pipeworx_* prefixed tools, polymarket_* tools, one-word verbs (remember, recall, forget), and compound names like scan_competitor_ai_presence. No single consistent convention governs the set.

Tool Count2/5

42 tools is far too many for a server named Thesportsdb; only 10 tools relate to sports data, while 32 belong to an unrelated Pipeworx data/betting/memory platform. The set feels like two or three servers merged into one, making it heavy and unfocused for any single purpose.

Completeness2/5

For the stated sports domain, the surface is partial: you can get teams, players, league tables, and recent/next fixtures, but there are no player statistics, head-to-head records, venue details, or season history — leaving notable gaps. The Pipeworx half is broad but doesn't belong in a server with this name, so the set as a whole is incomplete for its apparent purpose.

Resources