Create a GitHub release in the active repository, optionally generating the tag from a target commitish and setting draft, prerelease, name, and body.
Create a GitHub release in the active repository. The tag can be created from targetCommitish when needed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | No | ||
| name | No | ||
| draft | No | ||
| tagName | Yes | ||
| prerelease | No | ||
| targetCommitish | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says a tag may be created from targetCommitish, hinting at a side effect, but does not state whether the tag is pushed, what permissions are required, how draft/prerelease affect visibility, or whether the operation is reversible.
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?
Two short sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized, though the second sentence is the only place semantics are added, so conciseness comes at some cost to completeness.
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?
This is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter description coverage. The description does not explain return values, permission requirements, side effects on tags, or the meaning of most parameters, so it is incomplete for an agent to invoke reliably.
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% across six parameters. The description explains only targetCommitish ('The tag can be created from targetCommitish when needed'), leaving tagName, name, body, draft, and prerelease completely undocumented in both schema and description. This is a substantial semantic gap.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a GitHub release in the active repository.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from all siblings, none of which create releases. It stops short of 5 because it doesn't clarify the scope of 'active repository' or how release creation differs from adjacent tag/branch operations.
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 only usage hint is 'The tag can be created from targetCommitish when needed,' which implies when to supply targetCommitish but gives no broader guidance on when to create a release versus a tag, draft versus published release, or prerequisites. There are no explicit exclusions or alternative-tool references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.