FeatureOS

Update changelog

update_changelog

Destructive

Update an existing changelog by ID. Partial update — only the fields you pass are changed; omitted fields keep their current values.

Confirmation: publishing, unpublishing, scheduling, or any change to a live changelog changes what readers see, so it needs the user's approval. Without confirm=true nothing changes and the pending change is returned. Edits to a draft changelog apply directly.

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": {
      "changelog_id": "<changelog_id>"
    },
    "name": "update_changelog"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`title`	No	New title for the changelog.
`confirm`	No	Required to publish, unpublish, schedule, or change a live changelog. Set true ONLY after the user has explicitly approved this exact change in the conversation. Without it the tool changes nothing and returns the pending change for the user to approve.
`label_ids`	No	Changelog label (tag) IDs from list_changelog_labels, as a JSON array of integers, e.g. [1779, 1781]. Replaces the current labels; [] clears them.
`published`	No	Set to True to publish or False to unpublish the changelog. Requires confirm=true.
`description`	No	New description for the changelog. Accepts HTML.
`changelog_id`	Yes	The ID of the changelog to update (from list_changelogs).
`feature_requests_ids`	No	List of feature request IDs to link to this changelog. Pass as a JSON array of integers, e.g. [123, 456]. Do NOT pass a quoted string.
`scheduled_published_at`	No	Future date/time to schedule publication (ISO 8601, e.g. 2026-11-01T09:00:00Z). Requires confirm=true.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`changelog`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With annotations already declaring destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, the description still adds substantial context: that without confirm=true nothing changes and a pending change is returned for approval, and that draft edits apply immediately while live edits are gated. That is exactly the kind of consequence-level disclosure an agent needs before mutating a live resource.

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?

It is front-loaded with the core action and the partial-update rule, followed by a compact confirmation paragraph. Every sentence is relevant, though the confirmation content partially duplicates the confirm and published parameter descriptions.

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?

For an 8-parameter destructive mutation with an output schema, the description covers the essentials: identity, partial-update semantics, and the approval gate including what happens when it is omitted. It leaves the relationship to label-specific sibling tools implicit, which is the main remaining gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns above that by explaining the partial-update contract (only passed fields change) and the confirm gate in prose rather than relying solely on the per-parameter text. It does not, however, add much on the linking/scheduling fields beyond what the schema already documents.

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 (update an existing changelog by ID) and adds a meaningful semantic qualifier: it is a partial update where omitted fields keep their current values. It does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as set_changelog_labels, update_changelog_label, or create_changelog, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives clear, conditional guidance on the confirmation flow: publishing, unpublishing, scheduling, or changing a live changelog requires the user's approval, while edits to a draft apply directly. It does not name alternative tools (e.g. set_changelog_labels for label-only changes), which keeps it short of a 5.

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

All FeatureOS tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.