lightbulb-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

github_update_release

DestructiveIdempotent

Update an existing GitHub release using a project-scoped connector, with idempotency and approval controls for reliable write operations.

Instructions

Github connector operation update_release (platform tool github.update_release).

Routes only through the exact project/account governed connector authority.

Args: arguments: JSON string of arguments for the connector operation. project_id: Authenticated Project UUID. project_ref: Exact project correlation reference. connector_account_ref: Project-bound connector account alias. idempotency_key: Stable business-action identity. effect: Claimed read or write effect; Spring verifies it. approval_ref: Approved platform task UUID when resuming a write.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`effect`	No
`arguments`	No	{}
`project_id`	No
`project_ref`	No
`approval_ref`	No
`idempotency_key`	No
`connector_account_ref`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed6 schema fields changedv0.1.1Sep 7, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / approval_ref

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Approval Ref"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / connector_account_ref

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Connector Account Ref"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / effect

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Effect"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / idempotency_key

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Idempotency Key"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / project_id

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Project Id"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / project_ref

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Project Ref"
+}

First observedv0.1.0Jun 25, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already signal that this is not read-only, is destructive, and is idempotent. The description adds useful context about governed routing and approval requirements for writes via `effect` and `approval_ref`. However, it does not disclose what destructive effects may occur, such as overwriting an existing GitHub release or losing prior assets.

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?

The description is compact, organized, and front-loaded with the tool identity and routing constraint. The Args section is a clean structured list without redundant prose. It earns its length, though the content is more about governance plumbing than useful operational semantics.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a destructive connector operation with 7 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description lacks the core operational semantics: what a release update involves, what fields must go inside `arguments`, and what side effects to expect. The governance parameters are documented, but the actual business action is not, leaving the agent under-informed for correct invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description correctly lists and gives one-line meanings for all 7 parameters, which is necessary and helpful. However, the primary `arguments` parameter is only described as a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation', leaving the actual release-update fields entirely unspecified. It compensates for the schema gap only partially.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description mostly restates the tool name as 'Github connector operation `update_release`' without explaining what updating a release actually does or what effect it has. The main added detail is the routing constraint, not the tool's purpose. An agent cannot tell from the description what resource is being changed or how.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like github_create_release or github_list_releases. The sentence about governed connector authority describes execution constraints, not usage conditions or exclusions. The agent is left to infer when this tool is appropriate.

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

Deploy Server