Skip to main content
Glama

Wmata

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?

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description adds key behavioral details: partial failures degrade gracefully, bundlephobia's first measurement can take 5-30 seconds, and sources_failed will list timeouts. No contradiction 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 detailed but not overly long. Front-loaded with purpose, then specifics. Every sentence adds value, though slightly verbose. Could be trimmed slightly without losing context.

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 lists return fields explicitly (summary block with fields, per-advisory detail, links, alternative versions). Covers edge cases (partial failures, timeouts) and limitations (NPM only). Very complete for a read-only composite tool with good annotations.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% (baseline 3). The description adds context: package is 'npm package name', scoped packages accepted; version defaults to latest. Also clarifies NPM-only. Adds meaningful information beyond schema.

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 adding an npm package, covering license, advisories, version history, and bundle size from deps.dev and bundlephobia. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying the NPM ecosystem and the specific use case ('should I add this npm package').

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?

It explicitly states when to use: 'whenever an agent asks "is X safe / popular / small" or "what does adding lodash cost me"'. It also provides context on ecosystem limitations (NPM only in v1) and alternative for other ecosystems. Lacks explicit when-not usage but overall guidance is strong.

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

All Wmata 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools have distinct purposes with detailed descriptions, but the server mixes WMATA transit tools (bus routes, rail predictions) with unrelated general-purpose tools (deep_research, polymarket_arbitrage). This broad scope can confuse an agent expecting a focused transit server.

Naming Consistency2/5

All names use snake_case, but there is no consistent verb_noun pattern. Many are noun_noun (bus_routes, rail_lines) or verb_properNoun (ask_pipeworx), and the naming conventions vary wildly across different domains (e.g., validate_claim vs entity_profile vs scan_dependency).

Tool Count2/5

41 tools is excessive for a WMATA transit server. The vast majority of tools (ask_pipeworx, deep_research, polymarket_*) are not related to WMATA, making the tool surface bloated and unfocused for its stated purpose.

Completeness3/5

The WMATA-specific tools cover core bus and rail operations (incidents, predictions, routes, stations). However, gaps like fare info and elevator status are missing. The non-transit tools are extensive but irrelevant to the server's apparent focus.

Resources