Skip to main content
Glama

List Releases Tool

list_releases_tool
Read-only

Retrieves GitLab project releases with pagination, sorting, and ordering controls so users can browse release history for a specific project.

Instructions

List releases for a GitLab project.

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": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>"
    },
    "name": "list_releases_tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNoPage number (default: 1)
sortNoSort direction (asc, desc)desc
order_byNoOrder by field (released_at, created_at)released_at
per_pageNoResults per page, max 100 (default: 20)
project_idYesProject ID or path

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.1

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds almost no behavioral context beyond the basic read operation: no mention of pagination, sorting, filtering, or typical response behavior. With annotations carrying the safety signal, this is a minimal contribution.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately states the action and resource.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The tool has an output schema, full schema descriptions, and a readOnly annotation, so much of the needed context is covered structurally. However, the description omits any routing guidance relative to get_release_tool and create_release_tool, leaving a meaningful gap for an agent choosing among release-related tools.

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 all five parameters, including project_id, page, per_page, sort, and order_by, are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, which matches the baseline for high coverage.

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 states a specific verb and resource: list releases for a GitLab project. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_release_tool or create_release_tool.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_release_tool or create_release_tool. The listing intent is implied by the verb, but no exclusions or decision criteria are provided.

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