Skip to main content
Glama

Whiskyhunter

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral details: fans out across external services, partial failures with sources_failed, and a timing caveat for bundlephobia (5-30s). No contradictions with annotations.

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 somewhat long but well-structured, front-loading the main purpose, then usage, return values, and limitations. Every sentence adds value. Minor verbosity could be trimmed but remains efficient for a complex tool.

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?

The tool lacks an output schema, but the description fully explains return values: summary block fields, per-advisory detail, links, and alternative versions. It also covers partial failure behavior, making it complete for a composite tool with external dependencies.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds some context (scoped packages accepted, version defaults to latest) but these are already in the schema descriptions. No additional semantic enrichment beyond what the schema provides.

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 npm packages, covering license, advisories, version history, and bundle size. It uses specific verbs like 'scan' and 'check', and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being the only dependency scanner.

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 explicitly says when to use it: "Use whenever an agent asks 'is X safe / popular / small' or 'what does adding lodash cost me'". It also provides alternatives for non-NPM ecosystems and mentions partial failures, which is thorough.

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

All Whiskyhunter 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

Many tools have overlapping purposes (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research all perform research; polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker are similar). Agents may struggle to pick the correct tool.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is inconsistent: some use snake_case (list_distilleries), others are descriptive (ask_pipeworx, deep_research), and some are branded (pipeworx_feedback). No clear pattern.

Tool Count3/5

33 tools is high but not unreasonable given the broad scope. However, the server name implies a whisky focus, making the count feel excessive for that domain.

Completeness2/5

For the whisky domain suggested by the name, only 3 tools are relevant. The rest are generic or unrelated (Polymarket, npm scanning), leaving significant gaps for whisky-specific tasks.

Resources