Servidor MCP que convierte el diff de un lockfile en un plan de actualización legible para humanos.
Apunta tu asistente de IA (Cursor, Claude Desktop y Claude Code) a un PR de Dependabot, a la salida de npm outdated o a cualquier par de versiones de paquetes, y obtendrás un plan de actualización clasificado: clase semver, cambios incompatibles extraídos de las notas de lanzamiento de GitHub, CVEs corregidos en el rango, enlaces a guías de migración y una recomendación clara por paquete.
Un solo comando, a nivel de usuario (disponible en todos los proyectos):
claude mcp add -s user dep-diff -- npx -y @digicatalyst/dep-diff-mcpA nivel de proyecto (escribe .mcp.json en la raíz del repositorio, compartido con el equipo):
claude mcp add -s project dep-diff -- npx -y @digicatalyst/dep-diff-mcpCon un token explícito (sáltate este paso si tienes la CLI de gh autenticada; consulta Token de GitHub más abajo):
claude mcp add -s user --env GITHUB_TOKEN=ghp_xxx dep-diff -- npx -y @digicatalyst/dep-diff-mcpVerifica:
claude mcp listReinicia la sesión de Claude Code para que el servidor se cargue.
Añade la entrada a la configuración de tu cliente MCP:
Cursor: ~/.cursor/mcp.json
Claude Desktop: ~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json (macOS) o %APPDATA%\Claude\claude_desktop_config.json (Windows)
{
"mcpServers": {
"dep-diff": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "@digicatalyst/dep-diff-mcp"]
}
}
}Reinicia tu cliente MCP. Pregunta algo así como "¿qué hay de arriesgado en este PR de Dependabot?" y las herramientas se invocan automáticamente.
Una instancia alojada se ejecuta en https://dep-diff.digicatalyst.ca/mcp sobre HTTP streamable, de modo que puedes omitir por completo el paquete npm:
claude mcp add -s user -t http dep-diff https://dep-diff.digicatalyst.ca/mcpO en la configuración de un cliente:
{
"mcpServers": {
"dep-diff": {
"type": "http",
"url": "https://dep-diff.digicatalyst.ca/mcp"
}
}
}Pasa un token de GitHub con el parámetro ?githubToken=ghp_xxx en la URL si quieres límites de solicitudes más altos. La instancia alojada no mantiene estado y no guarda registros de tus consultas; consulta PRIVACY.md. Ejecuta el paquete npm de forma local si prefieres que tu token nunca salga de tu máquina.
Related MCP server: PatchEvergreen MCP Server
El servidor consulta la API de GitHub para leer las notas de lanzamiento. Sin un token disponible, obtienes 60 solicitudes por hora (el límite anónimo de GitHub), suficiente para consultas ocasionales de un solo paquete, pero no para un análisis masivo de lockfiles.
El servidor determina el token en este orden:
La variable de entorno GITHUB_TOKEN, si está definida.
gh auth token — si la GitHub CLI está instalada y autenticada, el servidor usa ese token automáticamente. No se necesita cambiar ninguna configuración.
Anónimo (60 solicitudes por hora).
ghSi ya tienes gh instalado (brew install gh && gh auth login), detente aquí: el servidor recoge tu autenticación existente. No hay ningún token en texto plano en ningún sitio.
Crea un token de granularidad fina en https://github.com/settings/tokens:
Nombre del token: dep-diff-mcp
Caducidad: 90 días (rota periódicamente)
Acceso a repositorios: Public Repositories (read-only) — sin acceso a repositorios privados
Permisos: nada más que la lectura pública predeterminada; no otorgues repo, workflow, user ni ningún permiso de escritura.
Luego, haz referencia a él en la configuración de MCP:
{
"mcpServers": {
"dep-diff": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "@digicatalyst/dep-diff-mcp"],
"env": { "GITHUB_TOKEN": "github_pat_xxx" }
}
}
}Este archivo de configuración vive en tu disco en texto plano. Mantén los permisos estrictos (chmod 600) y no pegues el token en chats de IA, issues ni pantallas compartidas; las transcripciones suelen conservarse.
El token de esta configuración debe tener el mínimo privilegio (solo lectura de repositorios públicos). Incluso si se filtra, solo puede leer datos públicos que ya podías leer.
Rota los tokens periódicamente. Revoca cualquier token que pueda haberse expuesto en https://github.com/settings/tokens.
El servidor nunca escribe el token en stdout/stderr ni en la carga útil de la respuesta.
analyze_package_changeAnaliza un cambio en un paquete. Parámetros: ecosystem (npm o pypi), name, fromVersion, toVersion.
analyze_packages_bulkAnaliza hasta 50 actualizaciones de paquetes en paralelo. Devuelve los paquetes clasificados por riesgo (security > caution > review > likely-safe > safe), además de recuentos resumen.
Clasificación semver — major / minor / patch / downgrade / unknown
Cambios incompatibles — extraídos de los encabezados de las notas de lanzamiento de GitHub
Correcciones de seguridad — CVEs presentes en fromVersion pero resueltos en toVersion (según OSV.dev)
Enlaces de migración — URL de guías de actualización encontradas en las notas de lanzamiento
Recomendación — veredicto en una línea + nivel
npm
PyPI
npm install
npm run build
GITHUB_TOKEN=ghp_xxx npm run inspect # MCP InspectorMIT
Given one package and two versions (from -> to), returns a structured upgrade analysis: semver classification, GitHub release notes summary, detected breaking changes, security advisories fixed in the range, migration guide links, and a clear recommendation. Use when the user asks about a specific package upgrade ('what changed between react 18 and 19', 'is it safe to bump axios from 0.27 to 1.0', 'what does upgrading lodash 4.17.20 to 4.17.21 fix'). Supports npm, pypi, and github-actions (use the action reference as the name, e.g. actions/checkout). For analyzing many packages at once or a Dependabot batch, use analyze_packages_bulk instead.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Package name (e.g. 'react', 'requests') | |
| ecosystem | Yes | Package ecosystem | |
| toVersion | Yes | Target version (e.g. '19.0.0') | |
| fromVersion | Yes | Current version (e.g. '18.2.0') |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| package | Yes | Package name that was analyzed |
| repoUrl | Yes | Source repository URL, or null when none could be resolved |
| ecosystem | Yes | Package ecosystem |
| toVersion | Yes | Version being upgraded to |
| fromVersion | Yes | Version being upgraded from |
| semverClass | Yes | Semver relationship between the two versions |
| releaseCount | Yes | Number of GitHub releases found strictly between the two versions |
| securityFixes | Yes | Advisories affecting fromVersion that are resolved at toVersion |
| migrationLinks | Yes | Migration or upgrade guide URLs found in release notes |
| recommendation | Yes | Single-line verdict explaining the recommendation level |
| breakingChanges | Yes | Breaking changes extracted from release notes; empty when none were found |
| releaseExcerpts | No | Raw release-note excerpts, present only as a fallback when a major/minor bump yielded no breaking changes |
| recommendationLevel | Yes | Risk classification, used to rank packages in bulk results |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds useful behavioral context by enumerating the analysis components returned (semver classification, release notes, breaking changes, advisories, migration links, recommendation) and by specifying supported ecosystems and the github-actions naming convention. No contradiction with annotations is present.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences carry the full message with no filler: the core action and output are front-loaded, examples make the intended queries concrete, and the sibling tool handoff is compressed into a single clause. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description provides all essential invocation context: required inputs, output content, supported ecosystems, and when to choose the sibling tool instead. Output schema and annotations already cover return structure and safety semantics, so nothing critical is missing for correct selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and each parameter has a basic description, so the baseline is solid. The description adds meaningful semantic detail beyond the schema: concrete version examples and the rule that github-actions names should use the action reference like 'actions/checkout'. This extra guidance helps an agent supply correctly formatted parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('returns a structured upgrade analysis') and identifies the exact resource: one package plus a from/to version pair. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling analyze_packages_bulk by emphasizing the single-dependency scope. There is no ambiguity about what the tool does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly gives the trigger condition: use when the user asks about a specific package upgrade, backed by concrete example queries. It also names the alternative analyze_packages_bulk for many packages or Dependabot batches, making the routing decision unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Analyzes a list of package upgrades in parallel and returns a unified risk report with packages ranked by recommendation level (security > caution > review > likely-safe > safe). Use when the user provides many dependency changes from a Dependabot PR, npm outdated output, lockfile diff, or batch upgrade. Returns: total count, breakdown by semver class, total security fixes found, packages with breaking changes, and per-package details. Limit 50 packages per call (chunk larger lists).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| changes | Yes | List of package changes to analyze |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| packages | Yes | Per-package results, ranked security > caution > review > likely-safe > safe |
| bySemverClass | Yes | Breakdown of the batch by semver class |
| totalPackages | Yes | Number of package changes submitted |
| securityFixesTotal | Yes | Total security advisories resolved across the whole batch |
| packagesWithBreakingChanges | Yes | How many packages had at least one breaking change |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it discloses parallel execution, the unified risk report structure, the explicit recommendation ordering (security > caution > review > likely-safe > safe), the returned aggregates, and the 50-package limit with a chunking instruction. The readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint are already provided by annotations, and the description does not contradict them. This is a strong, transparent behavioral profile.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is tightly structured: purpose first, then use case, then return content, then a practical limit. It is four sentences with no filler, and every sentence adds information an agent needs to invoke correctly or set expectations. The limit and chunking guidance is efficiently placed at the end.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with one well-schematized parameter, a rich output schema, and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, common triggers, output content, and operational constraints (parallel, 50-item limit, chunking). Nothing an agent needs to decide between this and the singular sibling is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the schema already documents the 'changes' array and the ecosystem enum. The description adds contextual color by calling the items 'package upgrades' and referencing batch sources, but it does not add significant semantic detail about the fromVersion or toVersion fields, which remain self-explanatory. This meets the adequate threshold without exceeding the schema-driven baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Analyzes a list of package upgrades in parallel and returns a unified risk report with packages ranked by recommendation level.' It clearly distinguishes itself from the singular sibling tool by explicitly targeting 'many dependency changes' and listing concrete batch sources like Dependabot PRs, npm outdated output, lockfile diffs, and batch upgrades. The ranking order further clarifies the tool's specific output, leaving no ambiguity about what it does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear when-to-use context: 'Use when the user provides many dependency changes from a Dependabot PR, npm outdated output, lockfile diff, or batch upgrade.' This strongly implies that single changes belong to the sibling analyze_package_change tool, but it does not explicitly name the alternative or state a when-not condition. That is a clear usage context without formal exclusions, so it misses the top score only slightly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.2analyze_package_change2 fields changedInput schema / properties / ecosystem / enumPrevious value: -[
- "npm",
- "pypi"
-]New value: +[
+ "npm",
+ "pypi",
+ "github-actions"
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "breakingChanges": {
+ "description": "Breaking changes extracted from release notes; empty when none were found",
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "ecosystem": {
+ "description": "Package ecosystem",
+ "enum": [
+ "npm",
+ "pypi",
+ "github-actions"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "fromVersion": {
+ "description": "Version being upgraded from",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "migrationLinks": {
+ "description": "Migration or upgrade guide URLs found in release notes",
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "package": {
+ "description": "Package name that was analyzed",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "recommendation": {
+ "description": "Single-line verdict explaining the recommendation level",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "recommendationLevel": {
+ "description": "Risk classification, used to rank packages in bulk results",
+ "enum": [
+ "safe",
+ "likely-safe",
+ "review",
+ "caution",
+ "security"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "releaseCount": {
+ "description": "Number of GitHub releases found strictly between the two versions",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "releaseExcerpts": {
+ "description": "Raw release-note excerpts, present only as a fallback when a major/minor bump yielded no breaking changes",
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "excerpt": {
+ "description": "Short excerpt of the release notes",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "tag": {
+ "description": "Release tag the excerpt came from",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "tag",
+ "excerpt"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "repoUrl": {
+ "description": "Source repository URL, or null when none could be resolved",
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "securityFixes": {
+ "description": "Advisories affecting fromVersion that are resolved at toVersion",
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "id": {
+ "description": "Advisory identifier (e.g. 'GHSA-29mw-wpgm-hmr9' or a CVE)",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "severity": {
+ "description": "Severity as reported by OSV (e.g. 'LOW', 'MODERATE', 'HIGH', 'CRITICAL')",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "summary": {
+ "description": "One-line description of the advisory",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "id",
+ "summary",
+ "severity"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "semverClass": {
+ "description": "Semver relationship between the two versions",
+ "enum": [
+ "major",
+ "minor",
+ "patch",
+ "downgrade",
+ "unknown"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "toVersion": {
+ "description": "Version being upgraded to",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "package",
+ "ecosystem",
+ "fromVersion",
+ "toVersion",
+ "semverClass",
+ "repoUrl",
+ "releaseCount",
+ "breakingChanges",
+ "securityFixes",
+ "migrationLinks",
+ "recommendation",
+ "recommendationLevel"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}analyze_packages_bulk2 fields changedInput schema / properties / changes / items / properties / ecosystem / enumPrevious value: -[
- "npm",
- "pypi"
-]New value: +[
+ "npm",
+ "pypi",
+ "github-actions"
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "bySemverClass": {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "description": "Breakdown of the batch by semver class",
+ "properties": {
+ "major": {
+ "description": "Count of major bumps",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "minor": {
+ "description": "Count of minor bumps",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "patch": {
+ "description": "Count of patch bumps",
+ "type": "number"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "major",
+ "minor",
+ "patch"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "packages": {
+ "description": "Per-package results, ranked security > caution > review > likely-safe > safe",
+ "items": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "breakingChanges": {
+ "description": "Breaking changes extracted from release notes; empty when none were found",
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "ecosystem": {
+ "description": "Package ecosystem",
+ "enum": [
+ "npm",
+ "pypi",
+ "github-actions"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "fromVersion": {
+ "description": "Version being upgraded from",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "migrationLinks": {
+ "description": "Migration or upgrade guide URLs found in release notes",
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "package": {
+ "description": "Package name that was analyzed",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "recommendation": {
+ "description": "Single-line verdict explaining the recommendation level",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "recommendationLevel": {
+ "description": "Risk classification, used to rank packages in bulk results",
+ "enum": [
+ "safe",
+ "likely-safe",
+ "review",
+ "caution",
+ "security"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "releaseCount": {
+ "description": "Number of GitHub releases found strictly between the two versions",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "releaseExcerpts": {
+ "description": "Raw release-note excerpts, present only as a fallback when a major/minor bump yielded no breaking changes",
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "excerpt": {
+ "description": "Short excerpt of the release notes",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "tag": {
+ "description": "Release tag the excerpt came from",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "tag",
+ "excerpt"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "repoUrl": {
+ "description": "Source repository URL, or null when none could be resolved",
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "securityFixes": {
+ "description": "Advisories affecting fromVersion that are resolved at toVersion",
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "id": {
+ "description": "Advisory identifier (e.g. 'GHSA-29mw-wpgm-hmr9' or a CVE)",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "severity": {
+ "description": "Severity as reported by OSV (e.g. 'LOW', 'MODERATE', 'HIGH', 'CRITICAL')",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "summary": {
+ "description": "One-line description of the advisory",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "id",
+ "summary",
+ "severity"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "semverClass": {
+ "description": "Semver relationship between the two versions",
+ "enum": [
+ "major",
+ "minor",
+ "patch",
+ "downgrade",
+ "unknown"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "toVersion": {
+ "description": "Version being upgraded to",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "package",
+ "ecosystem",
+ "fromVersion",
+ "toVersion",
+ "semverClass",
+ "repoUrl",
+ "releaseCount",
+ "breakingChanges",
+ "securityFixes",
+ "migrationLinks",
+ "recommendation",
+ "recommendationLevel"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "error": {
+ "description": "Why the analysis could not be completed",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "package": {
+ "description": "Package name whose analysis failed",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "recommendationLevel": {
+ "const": "review",
+ "description": "Always 'review' — a package that could not be analyzed cannot be cleared automatically",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "package",
+ "error",
+ "recommendationLevel"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "packagesWithBreakingChanges": {
+ "description": "How many packages had at least one breaking change",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "securityFixesTotal": {
+ "description": "Total security advisories resolved across the whole batch",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "totalPackages": {
+ "description": "Number of package changes submitted",
+ "type": "number"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "totalPackages",
+ "bySemverClass",
+ "securityFixesTotal",
+ "packagesWithBreakingChanges",
+ "packages"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}v0.1.1analyze_package_changeanalyze_packages_bulkScored across 2 tools
The two tools are clearly separated by scope: one handles a single package upgrade, the other handles multiple packages in bulk. Each description explicitly references the other, so an agent can unambiguously choose based on input size.
Both tools follow the same analyze_package_* pattern, with the singular 'change' and plural 'bulk' clearly differentiating them. This is a consistent and predictable verb_noun convention.
Two tools is minimal, but the server's narrow purpose of dependency upgrade analysis is well served by one individual and one bulk entry point. It is slightly thin but not unreasonable for the domain.
The pair covers both single-package and multi-package analysis, which covers most workflows. A minor gap is the lack of direct lockfile/diff parsing, but users can supply the package list from those sources.
Check exact npm/PyPI upgrades for evidence-backed breaking changes; query APIs and components.
Scan packages and lockfiles (npm, PyPI, Go, Maven, Cargo, NuGet) for vulnerabilities and malware.
Risk-scan a diff, flag AI-generated-code tells, find secrets. 5 of 7 tools need no account.
npm/PyPI/Django dependency upgrades: security, runtime compatibility, migration, package ranking.