open77_workshop_releaseRetrieve a project release to access its ID, state, files, tested builds, and declared dependencies for planning.
Every release of a project with its state, files, tested builds and declared dependencies; the release id is what a plan needs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety and scope posture. The description adds that the result covers all releases and includes state, files, tested builds, and dependencies. It does not disclose ordering, pagination, or representation of 'files'/'builds', so it adds useful context but not deep behavioral detail.
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?
The description is a single sentence with no filler; the first clause front-loads the resource and contents, and the second clause adds a purpose. It could be slightly clearer with an explicit verb, but it is appropriately sized.
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?
For a one-parameter, read-only listing tool, the description covers the main output contents and the practical purpose (release id for plans). It omits explicit parameter guidance and any mention of response shape beyond the listed fields, and does not distinguish itself from sibling workshop tools. Given the simple complexity and annotation coverage, it is minimally complete.
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?
The schema has one required parameter, projectId, with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only says 'of a project,' which trivially maps to projectId and adds no format, source, or usage detail beyond the schema's type/format. This is insufficient compensation for the low schema coverage.
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 names the resource ('releases of a project') and scope ('Every release'), and lists included contents ('state, files, tested builds and declared dependencies'). The verb is implicit rather than explicit ('list'/'get'), but the readOnlyHint annotation makes the operation clear. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like open77_workshop_search, so differentiation is only partial.
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 phrase 'the release id is what a plan needs' implies a concrete use case: call this when release IDs are needed for planning. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool mention, so the agent must infer context from sibling names. This is implied guidance, not strong routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.