Skip to main content
Glama

Uk Ons

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?

Discloses critical behavioral traits beyond annotations: bundlephobia first measurement can take 5-30s, partial failures degrade gracefully with sources_failed reporting. This adds context for timeout handling and robustness expectations.

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?

Single paragraph packs purpose, usage, limitations, and behavior with no wasted words. While structured for readability, a more scannable layout (e.g., bullet points) could improve efficiency. Still highly effective.

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?

Given the tool's complexity and absence of output schema, the description fully covers return structure (summary block fields, per-advisory details, links, alternative versions), error handling, and version behavior. No gaps remain.

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 provides comprehensive descriptions for both parameters (package, version). The description adds minor clarification about scoped packages and confirms default version behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema coverage is 100%.

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?

Clearly describes a composite check for evaluating npm packages, specifying the data sources (deps.dev, bundlephobia) and the categories (license, advisories, size, etc.). Distinguishes itself from single-source tools by highlighting the all-in-one nature.

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?

Explicitly advises when to use ('is X safe / popular / small', 'what does adding lodash cost me') and states the ecosystem restriction (NPM only in v1), with a pointer to alternatives (PyPI, etc. via deps.dev). Provides clear adoption guidance.

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

All Uk Ons 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

Most tools have clearly separated jobs, but the set is crowded with overlapping research/query entry points: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are described as currently identical, and the Polymarket/research cluster has fuzzy boundaries. Detailed descriptions help, but an agent can still easily mis-select among these tools.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are consistently snake_case and readable, but they mix verb-led commands (get_dataset, list_editions, validate_claim) with noun-led descriptive names (entity_profile, polymarket_edges, recent_changes) and a version-suffixed duplicate (ask_pipeworx_beta). The ONS tools also lack a shared ons_ prefix aside from ons_timeseries, so the naming is more a collection of conventions than one predictable pattern.

Tool Count2/5

37 tools is well past the heavy range for a server whose name suggests a focused UK ONS statistics surface; only about six tools actually serve ONS data, while the rest span memory, subscriptions, prediction markets, npm scanning, AI visibility, and general Pipeworx plumbing. The count is not an extreme 50+ sprawl, but it is too many for a coherent scope.

Completeness4/5

The core ONS read workflow is well covered: catalog discovery through list_datasets, dataset/edition/version metadata, filtered get_observations, and classic time series via ons_timeseries. Minor gaps exist, such as no dedicated dataset search and some peripheral one-off features like scan_dependency or generate_llms_txt, but agents can work around them.

Resources