Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
@dwsm/changelog-mcp

@dwsm/changelog-mcp

by dwsmorg
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

init_changelog

Initialize a new changelog file with optional configuration file, setting format and filename for safe changelog management.

Instructions

Erstellt eine neue Changelog-Datei und optional eine .changelog-mcp.json Config.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "init_changelog"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fileNoDateiname (Default aus Config)
formatNoFormat-Preset (Default aus Config)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.8

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It indicates a write operation but does not disclose if files are overwritten, what happens on existing config, or other side effects.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single concise sentence. It is efficient but lacks structure; key information is not front-loaded, and there is no separation of concerns.

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?

For a simple initialization tool, the description is minimally adequate. It does not explain return values, side effects, or usage context, which could be improved.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions; it only restates the tool's effect.

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 clearly states the tool creates a new changelog file and optionally a config file. It distinguishes the tool's purpose from siblings which focus on entries and versions, but does not explicitly differentiate.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_entry or get_config. No exclusions or prerequisites provided.

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