list_release_assetsRetrieve the assets attached to a release by release_id, including each asset's ID, name, size, and download URL so you can inspect or delete them.
List the assets (attached files) of one release, by release_id. Returns each asset's id, name, size and download URL; the id is what delete_release_asset takes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| repo | Yes | Repository name. | |
| owner | Yes | Repository owner. | |
| release_id | Yes | Release id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.22.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: it enumerates the returned fields and explains that the asset id is the input to delete_release_asset. It does not mention pagination or rate limits, but with annotations present this is solid.
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 tight sentences with no waste. The core operation is front-loaded, and the return-value note follows naturally.
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 simple read-only list operation with full schema coverage and annotations, this is complete. Because no output schema exists, the description's enumeration of returned fields is especially valuable, and it also links the return value to delete_release_asset.
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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented. The description reinforces that release_id selects a single release, but it adds no format or constraint details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries parameter semantics.
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 specific verb and resource (list the assets of one release), scopes it by release_id, and clarifies that assets are attached files. That is enough to distinguish it from list_releases and get_release without opening the schema.
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 description implies when to use it by requiring a single release_id, and it helpfully notes the returned id feeds delete_release_asset. It does not explicitly say when to prefer list_releases or get_release, or when not to use this tool, so guidance remains implied rather than directive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.