Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Breakage Calendar MCP server

Breakage Calendar MCP server

by CyberNative-AI
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

Dated breaks in given files

check_files
Read-onlyIdempotent

Scans provided file contents for Breakage Calendar dates that will break dependencies or configs, reporting each file line, failing check, and tested fix when available.

Instructions

Runs every Breakage Calendar date's published search over file contents you pass (package.json, requirements.txt, pyproject.toml, Gemfile.lock, go.mod, Dockerfile, compose.yaml, .github/workflows/*.yml, source files that name AI models) and reports the dates that will break them, with the file line, the check and the tested fix. Use when the server cannot read the project folder itself.

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": {
      "files": "<files>"
    },
    "name": "check_files"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
filesYes
days_aheadNoReport dates up to this many days ahead (default 365). Dates that took effect in the last 30 days, and announced dates that are late, are always included.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by describing what each result contains (file line, check, tested fix) and implying dependence on an external, date-driven rule set. It omits operational traits such as how many searches run or how slow a 500-file payload may be.

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?

Two sentences with no filler, and the core action leads. The long parenthetical file list is useful but makes the first sentence dense and slightly harder to scan; the usage condition is correctly placed last as a decision aid.

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 only two parameters, no output schema, and full annotation coverage, the description supplies enough: what goes in, what comes back, and when to reach for it. Remaining gaps are minor – unsupported-path behavior and the cost of large payloads are unstated.

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 50%: the schema documents path and days_ahead well, but leaves the required content field bare. The description partly compensates by listing the file categories whose contents are expected. It adds nothing about days_ahead's windowing behavior, which the schema already handles.

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: it runs every Breakage Calendar date's published search over supplied file contents and reports breaking dates with file line, check, and tested fix. It also enumerates the file types it understands (package.json, requirements.txt, go.mod, Dockerfile, workflows, etc.), which makes the tool's scope concrete rather than generic.

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?

The closing sentence, "Use when the server cannot read the project folder itself," gives an explicit trigger condition that clearly separates this from a folder-scanning sibling. It does not name that alternative outright or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a full routing rule.

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