Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
appforshare-mcp

appforshare-mcp

Official
by appforshare
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Release checklist of a build

release_checklist
Read-only

Check a build's release readiness: see which checklist items are done, who approved each step, open blockers, and whether the gated channel would accept it.

Instructions

The workspace release checklist with what is ticked on this build, its named approvals (who approves each approval step, approved, rejected with a note, or pending), the open release blockers of its project, and whether the gated channel (Live by default) would take it. Read only: approvals are given only by the approver signed in to the dashboard, never by an AI tool. Team.

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": {
      "build": "<build>"
    },
    "name": "release_checklist"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
buildYesBuild id or the slug of its install link

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.7

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds non-obvious context the annotations cannot: approvals are exclusively performed by a signed-in approver in the dashboard and never by an AI tool. It also discloses the shape of the returned state (approved / rejected-with-note / pending) and the default gated channel (Live). It does not cover failure behavior for an unknown build id.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The opening sentence is dense but front-loads the useful content, and the read-only caveat earns its place. However, the trailing fragment 'Team.' reads as truncated boilerplate, and the first sentence chains four distinct payload concepts without separation, making it harder to scan.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema, the description must carry return-value semantics, and it does so well by naming each returned component and the possible approval states. The remaining gap is edge-case behavior, such as what is returned when the build has no checklist or the id is invalid.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter is documented as a build id or the slug of its install link, so the schema carries the meaning. The description refers to 'this build' without adding format or lookup detail beyond that, which is the expected baseline rather than added value.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description enumerates the concrete payload of a build's release checklist: ticked steps, named approvals with their states, open blockers, and gated-channel eligibility. That is far more specific than the title alone. It stops short of distinguishing itself from close siblings such as release_status or release_overview, so an agent must guess which read tool answers which question.

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 explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no named alternative for overlapping reads like release_status, release_overview, or release_defaults. The only routing hint is negative: that approvals cannot be granted here, which points away from the tool rather than toward a replacement.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools