Upgrade Brief

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

pypi breaking changes

pypi_breaking_changes

Read-onlyIdempotent

PyPI breaking changes between two versions of a Python package, from its CHANGELOG/HISTORY/CHANGES file and GitHub releases: breaking items per version, Requires-Python and dependency changes, yanked versions, 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": "pypi_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	PyPI project name, e.g. 'pydantic', 'django', 'flask'
`prereleases`	No	Include alpha/beta/rc versions in the range

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 22, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: where data is sourced and that each call costs $0.005 USDC via x402, which matters for agent budgeting. It does not describe failure modes when no changelog exists, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

It is a single, front-loaded sentence that leads with the core purpose, then lists returned data and payment terms; every clause carries information. The middle list of outputs is dense but each item earns its place by telling the agent what to expect.

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?

For a read-only analysis tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description supplies a useful output summary (breaking items, Requires-Python/dependency changes, yanked versions, migration links, verdict) plus pricing. Only edge-case behavior, such as packages lacking a changelog, is left unaddressed.

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%, and the schema already explains exact versions versus major/minor prefixes, defaults, and prerelease handling. The description adds no syntax or semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: computes PyPI breaking changes between two versions of a package, and names the sources (CHANGELOG/HISTORY/CHANGES plus GitHub releases). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling changelog and version-list tools such as pypi_changelog and pypi_versions.

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?

The 'between two versions' phrasing implies when the tool applies, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose it over pypi_changelog, pypi_versions, or dependency_upgrade_plan. No exclusions or preconditions are stated.

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?