Upgrade Brief

by dev.workers.shopttyass-85f.upgrade-brief

npm breaking changes

npm_breaking_changes

Read-onlyIdempotent

npm breaking changes between two versions of a package, read from its real CHANGELOG and GitHub release notes: documented breaking items per version, major bumps, Node.js engine / ESM-CJS / peer dependency changes, migration guide links and a verdict. Paid: $0.005 USDC per call via x402.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "package": "<package>",
      "from": "<from>"
    },
    "name": "npm_breaking_changes"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`to`	No	Target version: exact, or a major/minor prefix ('19', '2.0') meaning the first release of that series (19.0.0). Default: latest stable
`from`	Yes	Version you are on now: exact ('18.3.1') or a major/minor prefix ('18', '4.21') meaning the newest release of that series
`package`	Yes	npm package name, e.g. 'react', 'next', '@types/node'
`prereleases`	No	Include alpha/beta/rc versions in the range

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 22, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent and open-world traits, so the description earns credit for adding non-schema facts: it reads real CHANGELOGs and GitHub release notes, and it costs $0.005 USDC per call via x402 — a material cost signal the agent cannot get elsewhere. It stops short of stating failure behavior when a package has no CHANGELOG.

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?

One front-loaded sentence names purpose first, then the returned artifacts, then the payment term — no filler. It is dense but each clause carries meaning; the paid-usage note is correctly placed last.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description does the necessary work of enumerating return contents (breaking items, major bumps, engine/ESM-CJS/peer changes, migration links, verdict), which is enough to decide whether to call it. Only the no-changelog edge case and result shape details are missing.

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%, with the version-prefix semantics ('18' meaning newest in series) and the 'to' default already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('npm breaking changes between two versions of a package') and enumerates what the result contains, so the agent knows exactly what it gets back. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with the close sibling npm_changelog, but the name and description make the breaking-change focus unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the name and the 'between two versions' framing, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement or routing to alternatives like npm_changelog or dependency_upgrade_plan. The agent must infer that this is for upgrade-risk assessment rather than general changelog reading.

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

All Upgrade Brief tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?