Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
stalemap

stalemap

by Umair
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Dependency changes since my training data (whole project)

project_changes
Read-only

Scan a JavaScript/TypeScript project to find imported dependencies that changed after your training cutoff, with the API changes affecting your code. Use at task start or after upgrades.

Instructions

Scan a JavaScript/TypeScript project and list the dependencies it imports that changed after your training cutoff, with the specific API changes that affect this code. Use it at the start of a task in an unfamiliar project, or after dependencies were upgraded.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "project_changes"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
allNoCheck every direct dependency, not only imported ones
cwdNoProject directory containing package.json (default: the server's working directory)
modelNoYour own model id (e.g. claude-opus-5-5). Defaults to the model configured in the coding agent's settings.
cutoffNoTraining cutoff (YYYY-MM or YYYY-MM-DD) to use instead of a model id.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the read-only, external-facing nature is covered by structured data. The description adds that results are relative to a training cutoff, which is genuinely useful framing, but omits anything about network access to registries, caching, cost/latency of a full scan, or how results are ordered.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, no filler, with the capability stated first and the usage triggers second. Every clause earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description usefully previews the return content ('the specific API changes that affect this code') and the read-only profile is covered by annotations. The main gap is sibling disambiguation against package_changes and search_changes, which matters given four similarly named tools.

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%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description reinforces the meaning of the cutoff/model interplay ('after your training cutoff') and the import-scope of the default behavior, but adds no syntax, format, or default guidance beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: scans a JS/TS project and lists imported dependencies changed after the training cutoff, including the API changes that affect the code. That is far more specific than a restated name. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling package_changes, which an agent would likely conflate with this tool.

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?

Gives two concrete triggering situations: starting work in an unfamiliar project, and after dependency upgrades. That is clear usage context. It stops short of explicit exclusions or naming the alternative (package_changes) for the single-package or non-imported case.

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