fix(mcp): derive server version from package.json and clarify tool descriptions (#420, #424)

[sparkysolutions10-pixel]

Resolves #420
Resolves #424

🛠️ Problem & Solution Overview

Addresses MCP server metadata and tool instruction clarity under the Stellar Wave Program:

1. Server Metadata & Accurate Versioning (The server version is a hard-coded string #420):

   • Derived the advertised MCP server version dynamically from package.json rather than using the hardcoded '1.0.0' literal.
   • Updated the server name from bazaar-mcp-server to lens-mcp-server to accurately reflect the Lens server surface.
   • Added a changeset (.changeset/mcp-server-version-and-descriptions.md) noting the server rename as potentially client-affecting.

2. Actionable Tool Descriptions (Tool descriptions do not tell an agent when to stop #424):

   • Rewrote bazaar_search tool description to explicitly document its discovery purpose, free zero-cost nature (no funds move), preconditions, argument format, and negative guidance (when NOT to use).
   • Rewrote paid_call tool description to explicitly warn that real funds move on the Stellar network, named the per-call spend limit (maxPrice, default $1.00), listed preconditions and argument formats, and specified negative guidance (when NOT to use).

🧪 Tests & Quality Verification

• Added unit tests in tests/mcp.test.ts:
  • should advertise server version matching package.json and accurate server name (Issue #420)
  • should fail test if advertised version disagrees with package.json (Issue #420)
  • should provide complete tool descriptions with cost, preconditions, and negative guidance (Issue #424)
• Verified all 7 test cases pass with npx vitest run tests/mcp.test.ts (100% pass).
• Verified npx tsc --noEmit passes cleanly with 0 type errors.

[Miracle656]

Changes requested: one issue per PR, and only issues assigned to you

This is a process requirement, applied to all 23 of your open PRs in this repo. It is not a judgement about the code, which I have not been able to review — and that is the first half of the problem.

The bundling

Across your open PRs, 150 distinct issues are claimed. This one claims several. #483 claims 22, #481 claims 20, #477 claims 20, #474 claims 20.

A PR that closes twenty issues cannot be reviewed. Each of those issues has its own acceptance criteria — typically five — so twenty issues is a hundred separate things to verify in one diff, and if any one of them is wrong the whole PR is blocked while it is fixed. Every batch I published says the issues are deliberately independent so they can be worked in parallel, by different people, without colliding. Bundling them removes exactly that property.

The assignments

135 of the 150 issues claimed are assigned to other contributors — 67 different people.

This PR is an example: it names issues currently assigned to other contributors who are working on them now. Several have open PRs of their own. If this merged as it stands, those people would have done the work and received nothing for it, and I would have no way to tell the two efforts apart.

I am not assuming anything about why. Assignments change, Drips and GitHub can disagree, and a wide-ranging branch picks up issue numbers easily. But the effect on the people holding those assignments is the same regardless of intent, which is why I have to act on it.

What I need

• One issue per PR. The issue number in the title, its acceptance criteria met, and nothing else in the diff.
• Only issues assigned to you, or unassigned ones you have claimed through Drips. If an issue is assigned to someone else, it is theirs.
• Re-open the work that meets both conditions as individual PRs. I will review them in the order they arrive and at the same pace as everyone else's.

Nothing is being closed. These stay open and are yours to re-cut, withdraw or split as you choose.

Two things worth knowing before you re-cut

Some of this has already landed. #488 (SSRF guard for bazaar_search) and #487 (the paid_call host allow-list) cover the same ground as your #449; #486 covers the MCP README. Check current main before rebuilding something that is already there.

main has moved a long way today — #306, #309, #252, #256, #355, #381, #390, #402, #476, #488 and more. Cut from current main, not from where these branches started.

If you believe an issue named here is genuinely yours, say which and I will check the assignment myself — I would rather be corrected than have someone lose work.