Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
upgrade-pilot-mcp

upgrade-pilot-mcp

by kdinisv
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Detect upgrade paths

detect_upgrade_paths

Identifies constrained, package-aware upgrade steps for JavaScript and TypeScript projects to plan safe dependency upgrades.

Instructions

Compute constrained, package-aware upgrade steps for the supported route.

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": "detect_upgrade_paths"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
targetsNo
rootPathNo
outputFormatNocompact

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.3

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'constrained, package-aware' but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the output looks like, or any side effects. The phrase 'supported route' is vague and could mislead an agent.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a single compact sentence with no wasted words, making it concise. However, it under-specifies to the point of ambiguity, so it is not as effective as a clear, slightly longer description would be.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, no parameter descriptions, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain what targets/rootPath/outputFormat mean, what the 'supported route' is, or how this tool relates to its many siblings, making it incomplete for an 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention any of the parameters (targets, rootPath, outputFormat). The parameter names and the outputFormat enum provide limited hints, but the description adds no meaning beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses the verb 'compute' and identifies the resource as 'upgrade steps for the supported route,' which gives some clear intent. However, 'supported route' is undefined, and sibling tools like generate_upgrade_plan suggest overlapping functionality, so it does not clearly differentiate the tool.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as generate_upgrade_plan, analyze_project, or apply_safe_codemods. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context clues to help an agent select it correctly.

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