repository_manager_validate_and_releaseValidate multiple projects in parallel and optionally trigger a release when validation succeeds, with optional version bumping and pushing.
Validate projects in parallel, optionally triggering a release if successful.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| threads | No | ||
| auto_bump | No | ||
| auto_push | No | ||
| bump_part | No | minor |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'optionally triggering a release' is consistent with that. But it omits the significant side effects encoded in the parameters — that auto_push can push to remotes and auto_bump/bump_part mutate version files — so the agent cannot see the true blast radius from the description.
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?
A single well-formed sentence with no filler and the core action front-loaded. It is efficient, though the terseness contributes to the specification gaps rather than being a fault of structure itself.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the description still leaves four undocumented parameters, undefined release semantics, and no usage routing for a tool that is not read-only. That is insufficient for a mutating, multi-parameter operation.
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 description coverage is 0% for four parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It only gestures at 'parallel' (threads) and 'release' (auto_bump/auto_push/bump_part) without explaining defaults, allowed bump_part values, or the difference between auto_bump and auto_push.
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?
States a verb ('validate') and resource ('projects') and adds a parallel scope plus an optional release step, which hints at a distinction from repository_manager_validate_single_project. However, it never says which projects are validated (workspace-wide? all configured?) and 'release' is left undefined despite many release-adjacent siblings (bump_version, phased_push, push_project).
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?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not tell the agent to prefer repository_manager_validate_single_project for one project or rm_projects_validate for a validation-only pass, so the routing decision is left entirely to inference from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.