Skip to main content
Glama
4DA-Systems

@4da/mcp-server

Official
by 4DA-Systems
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Upgrade planner

upgrade_planner
Read-only

Generates a prioritized dependency upgrade plan for one project or package, showing per-line targets and the smallest version that fixes each vulnerability.

Instructions

Prioritized upgrade plan for one project (project_path): the 4DA app's work order when computed (per-line targets, manifest vs lockfile fix), else the smallest version that fixes each vulnerability. Call when the user asks what to upgrade.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
packageNoPlan for this one package only (exact name, any ecosystem). Default: every dependency.
include_devNoInclude devDependencies. Default: false
project_pathNoProject directory to plan for: the app's plan is narrowed to the steps (and installed lines) that touch it; the standalone plan resolves that project's lockfiles. "*" for every project the app tracks. Default: the project the server was started in, when that directory is a project.
risk_thresholdNoOnly show upgrades at or above this risk level. Default: all
max_recommendationsNoMax recommendations to return. Default: 20

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv6.0.2
    • addedInput schema / properties / project_path
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Project directory to plan for: the app's plan is narrowed to the steps (and installed lines) that touch it; the standalone plan resolves that project's lockfiles. \"*\" for every project the app tracks. Default: the project the server was started in, when that directory is a project.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observedv6.0.1

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond them: it discloses two operating modes — the app-level 'work order' with per-line targets and manifest-vs-lockfile fixes when available, falling back to the smallest fixing version otherwise. It omits any note on cost, latency, or scope limits.

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?

Purpose, parameter anchor, and trigger are front-loaded in two compact sentences with little waste. The dense parenthetical ('per-line targets, manifest vs lockfile fix') is efficient though heavily jargon-laden for a reader without '4DA' context.

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

Completeness3/5

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 burden of explaining returns; it sketches the shape (per-line targets, minimal fixing versions) but through unexplained jargon, and never clarifies how this plan relates to upgrade_impact or vulnerability_scan. For a five-parameter planning tool it is adequate but leaves real gaps.

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 five parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces project_path's singular scope and the app-vs-standalone plan mode, but that mode distinction is already documented in the project_path schema text, so it largely repeats rather than extends the structured data.

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?

The opening clause states a specific verb+resource ('Prioritized upgrade plan for one project'), which is clear enough to separate it from siblings like upgrade_impact or vulnerability_scan. However, the elaboration ('the 4DA app's work order') leans on unexplained internal jargon rather than describing the tool's distinct role relative to those siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

'Call when the user asks what to upgrade' is an explicit, actionable trigger that tells the agent exactly when to reach for this tool. It stops short of naming when-not conditions or pointing to upgrade_impact/vulnerability_scan as alternatives, so it is clear context without exclusions.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools