Skip to main content
Glama

videogames

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses partial failure behavior (bundlephobia first measurement can take 5-30s, sources_failed lists timeouts, rest still returns), plus it enumerates the exact return fields. This adds substantial operational context.

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?

Though dense, the description is well-structured: purpose first, then usage triggers, output summary, ecosystem scope, and failure handling. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant padding.

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 lacking an output schema, the description lists all return components (summary block fields, advisory details, links, alternative versions) and covers edge cases like scoped packages and timeouts. It is complete for a tool of this complexity.

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?

The input schema already provides complete descriptions for both parameters (package name and version, with default behavior for version). The description adds no new parameter-level detail beyond what the schema states, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 'should I add this npm package' check that fans out to deps.dev and bundlephobia. This specific verb+resource combination with the multi-source aggregation distinguishes it from any sibling 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?

Explicitly states when to use: whenever an agent asks 'is X safe / popular / small' or 'what does adding lodash cost me'. Also provides a clear exclusion: NPM only in v1, other ecosystems should use deps.dev:version directly.

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

All videogames 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Heavy overlap within the ask_pipeworx family (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta which is currently identical, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research) and among prediction market tools (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) makes selection genuinely ambiguous. Some tools are distinct (remember/recall/forget), but the clustering blurs boundaries.

Naming Consistency2/5

Conventions are mixed: some tools use verb_noun (list_games, get_game, filter_games, subscribe, unsubscribe, recall, remember) while others use ad-hoc noun phrases or brand-style names (polymarket_arbitrage, entity_profile, deep_research, ask_pipeworx, bet_research). No single pattern dominates, making it harder to predict tool names.

Tool Count1/5

34 tools is heavy, and the mismatch is severe: the server is named 'videogames' but only 3 of 34 tools (list_games, get_game, filter_games) have any relation to video games. The bulk are Pipeworx data/prediction-market/memory utilities that do not belong under this server's apparent purpose. This is a fundamental scope failure.

Completeness2/5

As a video game server, the surface is extremely thin: only list/get/filter by tags and platform, with no search by name, no CRUD, no reviews, no categories beyond the fixed filter set. The other 31 tools are irrelevant to the videogames domain, so the stated purpose is largely uncovered. The mismatch makes coverage assessment nearly impossible for the actual server name.

Resources