DevFlow MCP Server

release_update

Modify release details such as name, description, status, or target date to keep project milestones accurate and up to date.

Instructions

Update an existing release. Use this to change the release name, description, status, or target date.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "release_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	The release ID to update
`name`	No	New release name
`status`	No	New status (e.g., "planned", "in_progress", "released", "cancelled")
`targetDate`	No	New target date (ISO 8601 format)
`description`	No	New description

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv4.35.0Jun 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description fails to disclose important behavioral traits such as whether the update is a full replacement or partial patch, idempotency, prerequisites, or side effects. It merely restates that it 'change[s]' fields, adding little beyond the schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is exceptionally concise with two sentences: one stating the action and one listing the modifiable fields. No extraneous information, and the purpose is front-loaded.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the complexity (5 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately differentiates from siblings but lacks information about return values or behavior after update. It is minimally complete for a simple update tool, but could be improved with output hints.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, so the description needs only to add value beyond the schema. It lists the same fields as the schema without providing additional format or constraint details, resulting in no net gain.

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?

The description clearly states 'Update an existing release' and lists the specific fields (name, description, status, target date) that can be changed, making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like release_create or release_get.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for updating release properties but does not explicitly provide when-not-to-use scenarios or alternatives. The presence of sibling tools suggests differentiation, but no direct guidance is given.

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

Deploy Server