Upgrade Brief

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

terraform breaking changes

terraform_breaking_changes

Read-onlyIdempotent

Terraform provider upgrade brief between two versions: BREAKING CHANGES and deprecations per release from the provider CHANGELOG and GitHub releases, the major upgrade guide headings and items, plugin protocol change, the required_providers edit, sources. 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": {
      "provider": "<provider>",
      "from": "<from>"
    },
    "name": "terraform_breaking_changes"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`to`	No	Target version: exact, or a major prefix meaning its first release. Default: latest
`from`	Yes	Version you use now: exact or a major/minor prefix meaning its newest release
`provider`	Yes	Provider <namespace>/<name> as in required_providers, e.g. 'hashicorp/aws'
`prereleases`	No	Include prerelease versions

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 28, 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, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond annotations: the data sources (CHANGELOG and GitHub releases) and, critically, that the call is paid at $0.01 USDC per call via x402 — a cost trait an agent must know before invoking.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lays out return contents, with the payment caveat appended. It is information-rich with little waste, though the run-on enumeration of output items is slightly hard to scan.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating the brief's contents (breaking changes, deprecations, guide headings, protocol change, required_providers edit, sources). Payment terms are also disclosed. Only minor gaps remain around response structure/format.

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 'provider', 'from', and 'to' fully documented in the schema (namespace/name format, prefix semantics, latest default). The description adds no parameter detail beyond that, so 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 ('Terraform provider upgrade brief between two versions') and enumerates exactly what the brief contains (breaking changes, deprecations, upgrade guide items, plugin protocol change, required_providers edit). This clearly distinguishes it from the ecosystem siblings like npm_breaking_changes and go_breaking_changes by naming the Terraform provider domain.

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 tool's purpose implies when to use it (upgrading a Terraform provider between two versions), but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no named alternatives or prerequisites. An agent must infer the upgrade-planning context rather than being told it.

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?