Havoptic AI Release Intelligence

Upgrade notes between versions

get_upgrade_notes

Read-onlyIdempotent

Everything between two versions of one tool: breaking changes, deprecations, security fixes, features and fixes, plus an explicit coverage gap for legacy releases without typed changes. to_version defaults to latest.

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": {
      "tool": "<tool>",
      "from_version": "<from_version>"
    },
    "name": "get_upgrade_notes"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`tool`	Yes	Tool id (fuzzy)
`detail`	No	brief (default) omits infographics and raw notes; standard adds evidence and links; full adds complete release notes.
`to_version`	No	Target version (inclusive), default 'latest'
`from_version`	Yes	Version you are on (exclusive)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`to`	Yes
`from`	Yes
`object`	Yes
`omitted`	No
`truncated`	Yes
`product_id`	Yes
`next_cursor`	Yes
`release_count`	Yes
`freshness_note`	No
`estimated_tokens`	No
`dataset_updated_at`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description's main value is in disclosing content coverage and an explicit limitation for legacy releases without typed changes. That coverage-gap disclosure is meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations. It does not discuss return shape or pagination, but the output schema exists to cover that.

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 compact and front-loads the core outcome: everything between two versions of one tool. The trailing sentence about to_version defaulting to latest is useful but slightly less well integrated. There is little waste, and the structure is appropriate for a tool definition.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With an output schema, full schema coverage, and clear annotations, the description supplies enough context to understand the tool's scope and limitation. The main missing piece is routing guidance relative to sibling tools, but for a read-only reference tool the description is otherwise complete enough to call correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only repeats that to_version defaults to latest, which is already stated in the schema, and does not add meaningful semantics for detail, from_version exclusivity, or fuzzy tool matching. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter documentation.

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 states a specific verb and resource: retrieving upgrade notes for one tool between two versions. It enumerates the content types included (breaking changes, deprecations, security fixes, features, fixes) and mentions legacy coverage gaps, making the purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from siblings such as get_breaking_changes or whats_changed_since.

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 does not say when to use this tool versus alternatives like compare_tools, get_breaking_changes, release_history, or whats_changed_since. The only guidance-like statement is that to_version defaults to latest, which is parameter behavior rather than usage guidance. The upgrade-focused use case is implied by the name, but no explicit when/when-not guidance is provided.

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

All Havoptic AI Release Intelligence tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?