Given a package and the version you are upgrading TO, return a concise checklist an agent can act on: the count of breaking changes, the highest-risk removals, whether automated codemods exist, and the recommended upgrade path. Use before performing an upgrade.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| package | Yes | ||
| target_version | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations available, the description bears the full burden. It clearly discloses the output behavior—returns a checklist with counts, risks, codemods, and recommended path—and implies a read-only operation by saying 'return a concise checklist'. It could add more about edge cases or failure modes, but the core behavior is transparent.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the key information, no redundancy. Every phrase adds value.
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 tool is simple (2 parameters) and has an output schema, so the description needn't detail return values. It gives the purpose, the exact inputs, the output contents, and a clear usage context. This is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool.
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?
The input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining both parameters: 'Given a package and the version you are upgrading TO'—clarifying that target_version is the destination version. This fully covers the parameter semantics.
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 uses the verb 'return' with a specific resource ('a concise checklist') and enumerates its contents (breaking changes count, high-risk removals, codemods, upgrade path). This clearly differentiates it from sibling get_breaking_changes, which likely just lists breaking changes.
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?
It explicitly states 'Use before performing an upgrade', giving a clear when-to-use scenario. However, it does not mention alternatives or exclusions, so it misses the top score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool serves a distinct role: list_packages for discovery, get_breaking_changes for detailed data, and check_upgrade_safety for an actionable summary. No two tools overlap in purpose, making selection straightforward.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (list_packages, get_breaking_changes, check_upgrade_safety). The verbs clearly indicate the action and the nouns the target, creating a predictable and readable naming scheme.
Three tools are well-scoped for a focused migration data server: one for discovering coverage, one for retrieving details, and one for safety checks. This is neither minimal nor excessive, fitting the domain perfectly.
The server covers the full workflow: identify if a package is tracked, retrieve comprehensive breaking change details, and get upgrade safety guidance. No obvious gaps such as missing version comparisons or update/save operations are needed in this read-only context.