Skip to main content
Glama

Get HelpCenter Change Set

helpcenter_get_change_set
Read-onlyIdempotent

Read one change set: its items, its schedule, and whether it is ready to publish.

A change set is a named release. It groups work that already exists — staged edits on published articles, never-published draft articles, and category visibility changes — and publishes all of it together, now or at a scheduled time. It owns no content: removing an item or deleting the set never deletes the work, which simply stays unreleased.

Use one when several articles have to go live at the same moment — a feature launch, a restructure, a coordinated translation. For one article, helpcenter_publish_staged_changes (or publishing a draft with helpcenter_update_article) is simpler. The flow: stage edits with helpcenter_stage_article_changes, or write drafts with helpcenter_create_article and published: false -> helpcenter_create_change_set -> helpcenter_add_change_set_items -> check readiness with helpcenter_get_change_set -> helpcenter_publish_change_set -> poll helpcenter_get_change_set_status until done.

Change sets are part of the Catalyst plan, behind the same gate as staged changes; on other plans the API answers 402.

Read-only. Call it before publishing. 'readiness' is the API's own check: BLOCKERS stop a publish (the article was deleted; the live article changed after its edits were staged), WARNINGS never do (an English update with no Portuguese counterpart may be deliberate — mention them to the user rather than deciding for them).

Each item is one of: 'staged_version' (one staged language of a published article), 'article_publish' (a draft article the set will publish), 'category_visibility' (a category's visibility change, payload { from, to }). Item ids are what helpcenter_remove_change_set_item takes.

Args:

  • change_set_id (number, required).

  • response_format ('markdown' | 'json'): default 'markdown'.

Returns: { status: "success", change_set: { id, name, description, status, is_scheduled, scheduled_for, published_at, release_note, items_count, readiness: { counts, locales, articles, blockers, warnings, publishable }, items: [{ id, type, article_id, category_id, locale, variant, payload, applied, error }] } }.

Errors: 404 if the change set is not in this help center.

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": {
      "change_set_id": "<change_set_id>"
    },
    "name": "helpcenter_get_change_set"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
site_idNoWhich help center to act on: an id from helpcenter_list_sites. Needed when this connection reaches more than one help center; omit it when it reaches one. Applies to this call only — pass it on every call of a task, and ask the user which help center they mean if their request does not say.
change_set_idYesId of the change set.
response_formatNoOutput format: 'markdown' for a human-readable summary or 'json' for the full structured payload.markdown

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, so the description goes further with genuinely useful context: change sets own no content, so removing items or deleting the set never deletes work; the Catalyst plan gate returns 402 on other plans; readiness blockers vs warnings are distinguished with examples and guidance to surface warnings rather than decide. The only minor gap is that item `applied`/`error` field semantics are left to the returns sketch.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then usage, then the workflow chain, then readiness semantics, then errors — a sensible order. It is long, and the embedded workflow chain and item-type enumeration could arguably live in sibling docs, but nearly every sentence carries information an agent needs to call or interpret this correctly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read tool with no output schema, the description compensates well: it sketches the return shape including readiness counts/blockers/warnings, enumerates the three item types with payload shape, and names the 404 case. An agent can call this and interpret the response without further documentation.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100% and each parameter is documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the two documented args but adds no new meaning (e.g. no guidance on when json vs markdown is preferable beyond the schema's own wording).

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Read one change set: its items, its schedule, and whether it is ready to publish" states a specific verb, resource, and the three things returned. It also explicitly separates this tool from the sibling helpcenter_get_change_set_status (which is for polling after publish) and from helpcenter_publish_staged_changes.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives an explicit when-to-use rule (several articles must go live at the same moment: launch, restructure, coordinated translation) and a when-not-to rule (one article → helpcenter_publish_staged_changes or helpcenter_update_article). It also lays out the full ordered workflow from staging through publish and polling, so the agent knows where this call sits.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources