Generate a Markdown changelog from a list of commit messages. Supports conventional commits and heuristic classification.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | Release date in YYYY-MM-DD format. Defaults to today. | |
| commits | Yes | Array of commit messages or "hash message" lines. | |
| version | No | Release version tag, e.g. "v1.2.0". Optional. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions the classification approach (conventional commits + heuristic) but does not state whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, requires authentication, or what happens with invalid input. For a 'generate' tool, this is a notable gap.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Zero redundancy and every word adds 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?
The tool is simple and the description covers the core function, but without an output schema, it should specify the changelog structure (e.g., sections by type) or how heuristics affect grouping. The description also omits how 'date' and 'version' influence output, leaving an agent to infer.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already describes, but it does imply that 'commits' should follow conventional commit conventions for best results.
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 ('Generate') and resource ('Markdown changelog from a list of commit messages'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like 'summarize_commits' or 'format_release_notes'. The mention of conventional commits and heuristic classification further specifies its scope.
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 clearly indicates when to use the tool: when you have a list of commit messages and need a changelog. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the context is unambiguous.
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.