Merovingian MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

merovingian_breaking

Detect breaking changes in API contracts within a repository. Identify modifications that could disrupt dependent services, enabling proactive impact assessment.

Instructions

Check for breaking changes in a repository's contracts.

Args: repo_name: Name of the repository to check

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": {
      "repo_name": "<repo_name>"
    },
    "name": "merovingian_breaking"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`repo_name`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.4Aug 18, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without indicating whether the tool has side effects, requires authentication, or is read-only. The simple action 'check' suggests non-destructive behavior, but this is not explicitly stated.

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?

The description is concise with two sentences, front-loading the purpose. Every sentence adds value, though it could include more detail without becoming verbose.

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

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema, so return values are covered. However, the description lacks usage guidelines, behavioral transparency, and context about what 'breaking changes' or 'contracts' refer to, leaving gaps for an AI agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides a brief explanation for repo_name: 'Name of the repository to check.' This adds only slight clarification beyond the schema title 'Repo Name' and does not provide richer semantics like format, examples, or constraints.

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 description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Check for breaking changes in a repository's contracts.' The verb 'check' and the specific resource 'breaking changes in contracts' make it distinct from sibling tools like merovingian_scan or merovingian_impact, though it does not explicitly differentiate them.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the nine sibling tools. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or situations where alternatives like merovingian_scan would be more appropriate.

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

Deploy Server