SALT19 Agent Utility Grid

Dependency Upgrade Go No Go

dependency-upgrade-go-no-go

Idempotent

Compare current and target npm versions and return GO/WARN/BLOCK plus UPGRADE/DEFER/BLOCK guidance, bounded semver risk, OSV security implications, recommended tests, and explicit NOT_PROVEN runtime, peer, migration, and ecosystem compatibility boundaries. Price: $0.20 via x402. Generate one _salt19_operation_id per intended purchase, preserve it across retries, and add _x402_payment_signature after satisfying the challenge. A stable _salt19_operation_id is required and makes semantic retries at-most-once.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`package`	Yes	Input parameter "package" for the dependency-upgrade-go-no-go tool.
`runtime`	No	Input parameter "runtime" for the dependency-upgrade-go-no-go tool.
`framework`	No	Input parameter "framework" for the dependency-upgrade-go-no-go tool.
`constraints`	No	Input parameter "constraints" for the dependency-upgrade-go-no-go tool.
`target_version`	Yes	Input parameter "target_version" for the dependency-upgrade-go-no-go tool.
`current_version`	Yes	Input parameter "current_version" for the dependency-upgrade-go-no-go tool.
`_salt19_handoff_id`	No	Optional SALT19 authorization handoff correlation. Preserve the same value across challenge, local signing, and paid retry.
`_salt19_operation_id`	No	Optional but recommended semantic purchase identifier. Generate once per intended purchase and preserve it across challenge, payment, timeout recovery, and retries for the strongest at-most-once contract. Standard x402 clients may omit it.
`_x402_payment_signature`	No	Optional x402 PAYMENT-SIGNATURE proof. Omit on the first call to receive the payment challenge; include after satisfying that challenge.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`tool`	No	Canonical SALT19 tool identifier when the result is tool-specific.
`status`	No	SALT19 execution, payment, availability, or verification state.
`response`	No	Tool-specific structured response payload when execution completes.
`operation_id`	No	Client-controlled semantic purchase identifier when applicable.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the $0.20 price, the x402 payment challenge-and-signature flow, and the at-most-once semantic retry contract tied to _salt19_operation_id. These are significant behavioral details that an agent needs before invoking the tool and are not available from annotations or schema alone.

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?

At roughly 70 words, the description is concise and front-loads the core output categories in the first sentence before explaining payment mechanics. It is dense but not bloated; all sentences earn their place, though restructuring into bullets would slightly improve readability.

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?

Given the 9-parameter complexity and presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential caller-facing context: cost, payment challenge, idempotency, and the scope of the returned guidance. It leaves some input semantics (runtime, framework, constraints) implicit, but the listed output compatibility boundaries help infer their role.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning to _salt19_operation_id and _x402_payment_signature by explaining their roles in purchase and retry flow, but it does not elaborate on runtime, framework, or constraints parameters beyond implying they affect compatibility boundaries.

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 names a specific verb ('Compare') and resource ('current and target npm versions') and enumerates the distinct decision outputs: GO/WARN/BLOCK, UPGRADE/DEFER/BLOCK guidance, bounded semver risk, OSV security implications, recommended tests, and NOT_PROVEN compatibility boundaries. This clearly differentiates it from the sibling 'dependency-go-no-go' by focusing on npm version upgrades.

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 description implies when to use the tool (when evaluating an npm dependency upgrade with current and target versions) but does not explicitly state when to prefer it over siblings like dependency-go-no-go or npm-package-intel. The detailed x402 payment and retry guidance is procedural rather than tool-selection guidance.

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

All SALT19 Agent Utility Grid tools Inspect

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

B3.4/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools occupy the same decision space: agent-decision-preflight, dependency-go-no-go, repo-adoption-go-no-go, github-repo-preflight, and npm-package-intel all target install/adopt GO/WARN/BLOCK decisions with overlapping scope. Discovery tools like find-salt19-tool and salt19-pricing also blur together. Descriptions are detailed, but the boundaries between these tiers are not obvious enough for reliable agent selection.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names consistently use lowercase hyphenated tokens and domain prefixes, which gives some predictability. However, styles are mixed: some tools are verb-led (find-, report-, verify-), while others are noun-headed (github-repo-facts, salt19-pricing, nws-active-alerts), and product-tier suffixes like -preflight, -facts, -intel, and -go-no-go are applied inconsistently. The naming is readable but does not follow a single clear pattern.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is well above the range where a toolset remains easy to navigate, even for a broadly scoped utility grid. The count includes multiple free routing/telemetry tools plus many paid data and decision tools, making the surface feel heavy. A more consolidated tiered design would reduce selection burden.

Completeness4/5

The server covers a wide range of claimed capabilities: live state/facts for Base, GitHub, npm, SEC, NWS, USGS, and URL; bounded decisions for dependencies, repos, plans, code changes, and commerce; plus x402 payment support and receipt verification. Minor gaps exist around actually executing payments or settlements, but that seems intentionally out of scope for a non-custodial utility grid.

Resources

Need Help?