Skip to main content
Glama

One release and its readiness, feature by feature, worked out from the board by the rules of D113 (never by AI).

get_release
Read-onlyIdempotent

One release and its readiness, feature by feature, worked out from the board by the rules of D113 (never by AI).

Feature = an epic in the release; issues with no epic are grouped as other. Each feature lists the checks it passes and, when it is not Ready, the reasons. For people who do not manage releases (manage: false) the gate items, baseline and scope history are left out — frontmatter.gate is [], baseline null, scope_log [] and gate / scope are null — only gate_summary is given, and added_after_baseline is false (D113 (4)). Use the numbers as they are; do not guess.

Read this before answering anything about a release ("are we ready?", "what is blocked?", "summarise for the steering meeting"). Use status, features[] (status, checks, reasons), other, counts, gate_summary and scope exactly as returned — never guess, round or invent numbers, and name the issue keys from reasons. manage: false is the member view (no gate items, no scope history) — say so rather than guessing them. You may create a planned release (create_release) and edit its name, date, milestones and description until the baseline is locked (update_release), with your user's rights (D189). You cannot tick its gate, lock its baseline, mark it shipped, reopen or delete it: that is for people in the web app — an AI agent never approves a release.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
release_idYesRelease id (spec D113): `R-` + a number, unique in its project; the file is `releases/R-{n}.md`.
project_keyYesProject key, e.g. `KJ`. 2–10 chars, uppercase letters and digits, starts with a letter.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, and the description adds important behavior: for non-release managers, gate items, baseline, scope history, and certain fields are omitted or nulled, and only gate_summary is provided. It also warns not to guess, round, or invent numbers and to name issue keys from reasons, which is valuable behavioral guidance beyond annotations.

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 front-loaded and mostly purposeful, with the core scope, returned fields, member-view caveats, and tool boundaries clearly organized. However, it repeats the title as its opening sentence and restates the 'do not guess numbers' instruction twice, leaving some tightening possible.

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

Completeness5/5

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

No output schema exists, so the description carries the full burden of explaining return content, and it does so well: status, features, checks, reasons, other, counts, gate_summary, and scope are named. It also explains the permission-dependent shape of the response and the limits of what an agent may do with releases.

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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents project_key and release_id formats, including the R-n release id pattern. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description states a specific resource and scope: one release and its readiness, feature by feature, computed from the board under D113. It clearly distinguishes this from release-listing or issue-level tools by focusing on a single release's readiness and returned fields.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It explicitly says to read this before answering release questions such as readiness, blocked work, or steering summaries. It also clarifies the boundary against related mutation tools: create_release and update_release are allowed for planned releases, but gate ticking, baseline locking, shipping, reopening, and deletion are not available to the agent.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources