Skip to main content
Glama

Xero

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. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description details behavioral traits beyond annotations, including fan-out behavior across two sources, partial failure handling ('sources_failed will list it if it times out'), and latency notes for bundlephobia's first measurement (5-30s). It also lists return fields, perfectly complementing the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint 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 front-loaded with the core purpose and well-structured across usage, return format, limitations, and failure behavior. However, it is somewhat verbose, especially in enumerating return fields, which could be trimmed without losing clarity.

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 (composite check with partial failures) and the absence of an output schema, the description provides comprehensive context: return fields, failure handling, latency notes, and ecosystem scope. It effectively covers all necessary information for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions (e.g., accepting scoped packages and version defaulting). The added context is minimal, so the score remains at baseline.

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, combining deps.dev and bundlephobia data. It specifically addresses the question 'should I add this npm package to my project' and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like scan_competitor_ai_presence by focusing on package analysis.

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 instructs when to use the tool: 'Use whenever an agent asks "is X safe / popular / small" or "what does adding lodash cost me".' It also defines ecosystem limitations ('NPM ecosystem only in v1') and suggests an alternative for other ecosystems, providing clear guidance on appropriate usage.

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

All Xero 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
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is some overlap (e.g., ai_visibility_check and scan_competitor_ai_presence are related; memory tools remember/recall/forget form a clear subgroup). Descriptions are detailed enough to differentiate, but the broad scope may cause occasional mis-selection.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is inconsistent: some tools use verb_noun (list_accounts, get_profit_and_loss), others are single words (forget, recall), and some use snake_case with mixed verbs (ai_visibility_check, ask_pipeworx, bet_research). No uniform pattern makes the set harder to navigate.

Tool Count3/5

25 tools is high but not extreme given the broad scope (accounting, betting, data queries, npm, memory, etc.). However, the server tries to cover too many domains, making it feel bloated. Each tool is individually useful, but the count is borderline excessive for coherence.

Completeness2/5

The Xero accounting subset is incomplete: only list and get operations, no create/update/delete for invoices, contacts, or accounts. Other domains (betting, npm) are covered well, but the core accounting purpose has significant gaps that will hinder agents.

Resources