get_releaseUse this when an agent needs to get one public release by slug. Do not infer ownership, licensing, or unpublished availability.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / additionalProperties / $refAdded value: +"#/definitions/__schema0"Output schema / additionalProperties / anyOfRemoved value: -[
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "number"
- },
- {
- "type": "boolean"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- },
- {
- "items": {
- "$ref": "#/additionalProperties"
- },
- "type": "array"
- },
- {
- "additionalProperties": {
- "$ref": "#/additionalProperties"
- },
- "type": "object"
- }
-]Output schema / definitionsAdded value: +{
+ "__schema0": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ },
+ {
+ "items": {
+ "$ref": "#/definitions/__schema0"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ {
+ "additionalProperties": {
+ "$ref": "#/definitions/__schema0"
+ },
+ "propertyNames": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ ]
+ }
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so the tool is known to be safe. The description adds a caution about not inferring ownership, licensing, or unpublished availability, which clarifies what the response does not include. This is useful but not a deep behavioral disclosure.
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 concise sentences with no filler. The usage condition is front-loaded, and the clarification about what not to infer is succinct.
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 description covers the main action and adds an important constraint, but it does not mention how to obtain a valid slug (e.g., using list_releases) or discuss edge cases such as nonexistent or non-public slugs. Since the tool is simple and an output schema exists, these are minor but prevent a higher score.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, leaving the description to explain the id parameter. The phrase 'get one public release by slug' indicates that the id parameter expects a slug value, adding crucial semantics beyond the bare 'id' string.
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?
Description states the tool retrieves a single public release identified by slug, which clearly identifies the action and resource. It does not explicitly name sibling differentiation but the verb+resource is clear.
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?
Description starts with 'Use this when an agent needs to get one public release by slug,' providing an explicit condition for use. No alternative tools are mentioned, but the condition itself gives clear guidance.
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.