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

@dwsm/changelog-mcp

by dwsmorg
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

preview_entry

Preview a formatted changelog entry to validate its appearance and correctness before writing it to the changelog.

Instructions

Zeigt eine Vorschau des formatierten Changelog-Eintrags ohne zu schreiben.

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": {
      "category": "<category>",
      "description": "<description>"
    },
    "name": "preview_entry"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bumpNoVersion-Bump-Typ (Default: "patch")
filesNoOptionale Liste geänderter Dateien
detailsNoOptionale Detail-Punkte als Array. Kein Markdown (z.B. ###) verwenden - wird als Heading interpretiert.
categoryYesKategorie des Eintrags. Erlaubte Werte: Added, Changed, Deprecated, Removed, Fixed, Security
descriptionYesBeschreibung der Änderung

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.8

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Without annotations, the description only conveys that the tool does not write. It does not disclose other behaviors such as required authentication, what the response contains, or if any state is affected. Minimal behavioral disclosure beyond the name.

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?

One concise sentence that front-loads the action. Efficient for a simple tool, though it could be slightly more structured.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the preview looks like (return format) or any prerequisites, leaving questions for the agent.

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?

All parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), so the tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states the tool shows a preview of the formatted changelog entry without writing, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_entry (which writes) and get_entry (which retrieves existing entries).

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description implies usage for previewing before writing, but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. The context is clear enough for a simple preview tool.

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