Skip to main content
Glama

Woocommerce

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Description adds concrete behaviors beyond annotations: fans out to two services, partial failures degrade gracefully, first measurement can be slow (5-30s), sources_failed list returned. No contradiction with annotations (readOnly, idempotent, etc.).

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 with all key info, front-loaded with main purpose. Slightly long but efficient; no wasted sentences. Could use bullet points for clarity but still good.

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, but description sufficiently lists return fields (summary block, per-advisory, links, alternative versions), covers error cases (timeout), and ecosystem scope. Adequate for agent to use correctly.

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%, so baseline 3. Description adds context: scoped packages accepted, defaults to latest version. Extra details improve understanding but are not critical.

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?

Description clearly states the tool is a composite check for adding an npm package, covering license, advisories, version history, and bundle size. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying NPM-only in v1 and other ecosystems via deps.dev directly.

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 says 'Use whenever an agent asks "is X safe / popular / small" or "what does adding lodash cost me". Also mentions limitations (NPM only), partial failure behavior, and alternative for other ecosystems.

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

All Woocommerce 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The five WooCommerce tools are clearly distinct, but the remaining 31 Pipeworx tools contain several overlapping query/research entry points (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, validate_claim) that an agent would struggle to tell apart without deep inspection. The context of the server also misleads: an agent expecting WooCommerce tools must navigate a much larger unrelated research toolkit.

Naming Consistency2/5

The woo_* tools follow a clean verb_noun pattern, but the bulk of the set uses wildly mixed conventions: bare verbs (forget, recall, subscribe), noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_changes), generic names (ask_pipeworx, discover_tools), and vendor-prefixed variants (pipeworx_trending, polymarket_edges). There is no single naming system across the server.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is far too many for a server whose apparent purpose is WooCommerce store access; only 5 tools actually relate to WooCommerce. The remaining 31 are an unrelated general-purpose data research suite, making the toolkit feel bloated and mis-scoped.

Completeness1/5

The WooCommerce surface is severely incomplete: it only supports read operations (get/list for products, orders, customers). There are no create, update, delete, refund, or other write operations, so an agent cannot actually manage a store. The unrelated Pipeworx tools do not fill these gaps.

Resources