ロックファイルの差分を、人間が読めるアップグレード計画に変換するMCPサーバーです。
AI アシスタント（Cursor、Claude Desktop、Claude Code）を Dependabot プレリクエスト、npm outdated の出力、または任意のパッケージバージョンの組み合わせに向けると、ランク付けされたアップグレード計画が返ってきます：semver 区分、GitHub リリースノートから抽出した破壊的変更、そのバージョン範囲で修正された CVE、移行ガイドへのリンク、パッケージごとの明確な推奨です。
ワンコマンド、ユーザースコープ（すべてのプロジェクトで利用可能）：
claude mcp add -s user dep-diff -- npx -y @digicatalyst/dep-diff-mcpプロジェクトスコープ（リポジトリ直下に .mcp.json を書き込み、チームで共有）：
claude mcp add -s project dep-diff -- npx -y @digicatalyst/dep-diff-mcp明示的なトークンを指定する場合（gh CLI で認証済みの場合はこの手順はスキップしてください — GitHubトークン を参照）：
claude mcp add -s user --env GITHUB_TOKEN=ghp_xxx dep-diff -- npx -y @digicatalyst/dep-diff-mcp確認：
claude mcp listClaude Code のセッションを再起動して、サーバーを読み込んでください。
MCP クライアント設定に追加します：
Cursor: ~/.cursor/mcp.json
Claude Desktop: ~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json（macOS）または %APPDATA%\Claude\claude_desktop_config.json（Windows）
{
"mcpServers": {
"dep-diff": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "@digicatalyst/dep-diff-mcp"]
}
}
}MCP クライアントを再起動してください。「このDependabot PRのリスクは何か？」と聞くと、ツールが自動的に呼び出されます。
ホストされたインスタンスは https://dep-diff.digicatalyst.ca/mcp のストリーミングHTTPで稼働しているため、npm パッケージを完全に使わずに済みます。
claude mcp add -s user -t http dep-diff https://dep-diff.digicatalyst.ca/mcpまたはクライアント設定：
{
"mcpServers": {
"dep-diff": {
"type": "http",
"url": "https://dep-diff.digicatalyst.ca/mcp"
}
}
}レート制限を上げたい場合は、URL に ?githubToken=ghp_xxx を付けて GitHub トークンを渡します。ホスト型インスタンスはステートレスで、クエリのログを一切残しません — PRIVACY.md を参照してください。自分のマシンからトークンを出したくない場合は、代わりに npm パッケージをローカルで実行してください。
Related MCP server: PatchEvergreen MCP Server
サーバーは GitHub API にアクセスしてリリースノートを読み取ります。トークンなしだと、1時間あたり60リクエスト（GitHub の匿名制限）を受けられます。単発のパッケージ検索には十分ですが、ロックファイル全体の一括分析には不十分です。
サーバーは次の順序でトークンを解決します：
GITHUB_TOKEN 環境変数（設定されている場合）。
gh auth token — GitHub CLI がインストールされ認証済みであれば、サーバーはそのトークンを自動的に使用します。設定の変更は不要です。
匿名（60リクエスト/時）。
gh CLI を使用するgh をすでにインストールしている（brew install gh && gh auth login）なら、ここで終了です。サーバーが既存の認証を自動的に使用します。平文のトークンはどこにもありません。
https://github.com/settings/tokens で 細粒度（fine-grained） トークンを作成します：
トークン名： dep-diff-mcp
有効期限： 90日（定期的にローテーション）
リポジトリアクセス： Public Repositories (read-only) — プライベートリポジトリへのアクセスはありません
権限： デフォルトの公開読み取りのみ。repo・workflow・user、その他いかなる書き込みスコープも付与しないでください
次に、MCP 設定内で参照します：
{
"mcpServers": {
"dep-diff": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "@digicatalyst/dep-diff-mcp"],
"env": { "GITHUB_TOKEN": "github_pat_xxx" }
}
}
}この設定ファイルはディスク上に平文で存在します。パーミッションを厳密に保ち（chmod 600）、トークンを AI チャットや issue、共有画面に貼り付けないでください。会話ログは残ることが多いためです。
この設定のトークンは最小権限（公開リポジトリの読み取り専用）にします。万一漏れても、すでに読み取れる公開データのみを読み取れます。
トークンは定期的にローテーションしてください。露出した可能性のあるトークンは、https://github.com/settings/tokens で失効させてください。
サーバーはトークンを stdout/stderr やレスポンスのペイロードに書き出すことは決してありません。
analyze_package_change1つのパッケージアップグレードを分析します。入力：ecosystem（npm または pypi）、name、fromVersion、toVersion。
analyze_packages_bulk最大50件のパッケージアップグレードを並列に分析します。リスク順にランク付けされたパッケージ（security > caution > review > likely-safe > safe）と、要約カウントを返します。
Semver 区分 — major / minor / patch / downgrade / unknown
破壊的変更 — GitHub リリースノートの見出しから抽出
セキュリティ修正 — fromVersion に存在し、toVersion で修正済みのCVE（OSV.dev 経由）
移行ガイドリンク — リリースノート内で見つかったアップグレードガイドのURL
推奨事項 — 1行の判定 + レベル
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.