get_latest_releaseReturn the newest published release, read live from GitHub, with the install command for every package manager the project supports.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| install_method | No | Return the install command for this package manager only. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| install | Yes | ||
| version | Yes | ||
| published_at | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / install_method / enumPrevious value: -[
- "homebrew",
- "script",
- "aur",
- "mise",
- "go"
-]New value: +[
+ "homebrew",
+ "cask",
+ "script",
+ "aur",
+ "mise",
+ "go"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, which the description complements with the 'live from GitHub' detail, signaling real-time external data and variable results. It does not cover failure modes or rate limits, but the annotation coverage lowers the bar.
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?
A single sentence that front-loads the core action and adds the key nuance of live GitHub access and install commands. Every word earns its place; no fluff.
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?
Given a simple one-optional-parameter tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description covers the essential behavior. It does not discuss edge cases like no release found, but these are not critical for a read-only live fetch 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?
Schema coverage is 100% (the install_method parameter has a full description). The tool description adds the default behavior — returning install commands for every package manager when no parameter is provided — which goes beyond the schema and clarifies the param's effect.
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?
States a specific verb ('Return'), a clear resource ('newest published release'), and a distinctive behavior ('read live from GitHub'). The purpose is unambiguous and clearly differentiates from sibling doc and tool-list tools.
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?
The description makes the tool's function obvious, but does not explicitly say when to use it over alternatives or when not to use it. The distinction from siblings is clear from context, but no exclusions are stated.
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.