Skip to main content
Glama

R3

by org.r3js
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

List a project's releases

r3_release_list
Read-only

List the releases of an R3 project, newest first: number, date, who made it, note, size, which one is LIVE (what the public URL shows), pinned, and releases in the trash (restorable for 7 days). Also says whether the project has saved changes that are not live yet: saving does NOT change the live site; r3_publish_live does. Read-only. Needs the project:read right.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectIdYesThe project id (r3_project_list).

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
liveYes
answerYesThis answer in words: what was done, what R3 measured, decided or refused, and what to do next. The same text as the result's text block. Read it: the fields beside it are the data, this is the guidance.
releasesYes
projectIdYes
changesNotLiveYes
liveReleaseNumberYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedOutput schema / properties / answer
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "This answer in words: what was done, what R3 measured, decided or refused, and what to do next. The same text as the result's text block. Read it: the fields beside it are the data, this is the guidance.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedOutput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "projectId",
-  "live",
-  "liveReleaseNumber",
-  "changesNotLive",
-  "releases"
-]New value: +[
+  "projectId",
+  "live",
+  "liveReleaseNumber",
+  "changesNotLive",
+  "releases",
+  "answer"
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only.' On top of that it adds behavior annotations don't carry: the required project:read right, the 7-day trash restoration window, and the crucial distinction between saved-but-unpublished changes and the live site. No pagination or rate-limit detail, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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 and the returned fields, then the publishing caveat and permission requirement in a compact first sentence and two short follow-ups. Every clause carries information, though the long enumerated field list makes it slightly dense rather than maximally tight.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, yet the description still frames what the listing surfaces (LIVE marker, pinned, trash). Combined with the auth requirement, the save-vs-publish semantics, and the trash retention window, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool correctly.

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?

There is only one parameter and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage, including a pointer to r3_project_list for obtaining the id. The description says only 'Needs the project', adding no format or sourcing detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the releases of an R3 project') plus scope and ordering ('newest first'). It goes further than the title by enumerating exactly what each row contains (number, date, author, note, size, LIVE marker, pinned, trashed), making it unmistakable against siblings like r3_release_restore or r3_release_rollback.

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?

Gives clear context for when this listing is useful and explicitly routes the agent to r3_publish_live for the related publishing action ('saving does NOT change the live site; r3_publish_live does'). It does not state when-not-to-use this tool or name a direct alternative lister, so it stops short of a full 5.

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

All R3 toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources