MCP GitHub CrunchTools

Create Release Tool

create_release_tool

Create a GitHub release, creating its tag if the tag does not exist.

Instructions

Create a GitHub release, creating its tag if the tag does not exist.

Publishing a release (draft=false) fires the repository's on: release workflows, such as package and image publishing.

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": {
      "repo": "<repo>",
      "tag_name": "<tag_name>"
    },
    "name": "create_release_tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`body`	No	Release notes (Markdown)
`name`	No	Release title (default: the tag name)
`repo`	Yes	Repository name
`draft`	No	Create an unpublished draft (default: false)
`owner`	No	Repository owner (defaults to GITHUB_DEFAULT_ORG if unset)
`tag_name`	Yes	Tag of the release (e.g. "v1.2.0")
`prerelease`	No	Mark the release as a prerelease (default: false)
`target_commitish`	No	Branch or commit SHA to tag when the tag does not exist yet (default: the repository's default branch)
`generate_release_notes`	No	Let GitHub generate the notes, with ``body`` in front of them (default: false)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.2.0Oct 14, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers the two most important behavioral facts: the tag is created if missing, and publishing (draft=false) triggers the repository's on:release workflows. It omits auth/permission prerequisites and reversibility, but the side-effect disclosure is genuinely valuable.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and the second sentence conveys a high-value consequence without waste. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the operation and its main side effect for a 9-param mutation tool with zero annotations. Slightly incomplete on permissions/auth context, but otherwise sufficient.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 9 parameters, and the default for draft is defined there. The description reinforces the draft=false semantics but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the structured fields, so the baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb (Create) and resource (GitHub release) and adds the key side effect that the tag is created when absent. No sibling tool covers releases, so there is no ambiguity to resolve, and the scope is unmistakable.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: an agent infers you call this to publish a release. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing guidance across the 25 sibling tools, which is acceptable only because no sibling overlaps.

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