Upgrade Brief

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

pypi changelog

pypi_changelog

Read-onlyIdempotent

PyPI changelog between two versions of a Python package: full release notes per version (newest first) with dates, bump type, yanked flags, extracted breaking changes and Requires-Python / dependency changes. Paid: $0.01 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_changelog"
  }
}

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'
`maxVersions`	No	Newest N versions to return notes for (default 30)
`prereleases`	No	Include alpha/beta/rc versions in the range

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 22, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/open-world, and the description adds non-obvious behavior: output ordering (newest first), inclusion of yanked flags, and — importantly — that each call costs $0.01 USDC via x402, which an agent must know before invoking. It does not mention rate limits or failure behavior for a nonexistent package/version.

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 capability and payload are front-loaded in one dense sentence, with the pricing disclosure isolated at the end. Slightly packed with a comma list, but every clause conveys real information about the return value.

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 must characterize returns, and it does: per-version notes with dates, bump type, yanked flags, breaking changes, and dependency/Python constraint deltas, plus ordering. Payment/auth is disclosed. Missing only edge-case behavior (unknown package, empty range).

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 per-parameter detail on prefix semantics, defaults, and maxVersions bounds, so the schema carries the load. The description only reinforces the two-version framing and newest-first ordering; it adds no semantics beyond the schema.

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+resource ('PyPI changelog between two versions') and enumerates the payload (release notes, dates, bump type, yanked flags, breaking changes, Requires-Python/dependency changes). The PyPI scope separates it from the npm_* siblings, but no sibling is named explicitly, so the boundary with pypi_versions and pypi_breaking_changes is only implied.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No statement of when to prefer this over pypi_breaking_changes, pypi_versions, or dependency_upgrade_plan. It says breaking changes are included, which could actually pull an agent toward this tool when a dedicated sibling exists, and there are no exclusions or prerequisites given.

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?