Format polished release notes for a given version, suitable for GitHub Releases or a product changelog page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | Release date in YYYY-MM-DD format. Defaults to today. | |
| commits | Yes | Array of commit messages. | |
| project | No | Project or product name. Optional. | |
| version | Yes | Version string, e.g. "2.0.0". |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the intended output ('polished release notes') and does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether commit messages are rewritten, grouped, or summarized, whether the operation is deterministic, or whether any external calls are made.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that communicates the action, input, and output context without fluff. Every phrase contributes value.
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?
For a tool with four simple, fully documented parameters and an obvious text output, the description covers the core purpose and target distribution channels. It could be improved by explaining the output format or relationship to sibling changelog tools, but it is not a major gap.
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?
All four parameters are already documented in the input schema (version, commits, date, project), so the description adds little specific parameter meaning. It reinforces that commits are commit messages and that version is the target version, but that is already in the schema.
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?
The description uses a specific verb ('Format') and resource ('polished release notes for a given version'), with explicit context ('GitHub Releases or a product changelog page'). It is reasonably clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool generate_changelog, which likely overlaps in purpose.
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 implies a use case (creating user-facing release notes for a version) and names target outputs. However, it gives no guidance on when to choose this over generate_changelog or summarize_commits, and no exclusions or prerequisites.
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.
The three commit-to-text tools (summarize_commits, generate_changelog, format_release_notes) overlap in purpose, though each targets a different output format. detect_breaking_changes and generate_pr_description are clearly distinct.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (detect, format, generate, summarize) with clear, readable names. No mixed conventions.
Five tools is well-scoped for a changelog-writing server, covering the full generation pipeline without redundancy or bloat.
The core changelog lifecycle is covered: summarize commits, detect breaking changes, generate changelog, and format release notes. The PR description tool is a bonus. Minor gap: no tool for editing or updating an existing changelog.