Preview or export the SemVer changelog and receive only its path, enabling direct use in scripts.
Preview or export the current SemVer Markdown changelog and return only its path; sprint_close writes the canonical changelog automatically.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.17Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / pathAdded value: +{
+ "minLength": 1,
+ "type": "string"
+}v0.1.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool returns only its path and that sprint_close writes canonical changelog, but it does not clarify side effects (e.g., whether exporting triggers writes), permissions needed, or failure modes. The behavior is partially disclosed but lacks depth.
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?
The description is concise, using a single sentence with clear structure. It is front-loaded: the main action ('Preview or export') is stated first, then details. No wasted words.
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?
With one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is brief but misses key context: what the changelog contains, how preview/export differs, possible return format, and interaction with sprint_close. The complexity is moderate, but the description doesn't fully prepare the agent for a successful call.
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 0%, and the only parameter is 'path' with minimal constraint (minLength). The description does not explain what 'path' should point to (e.g., a file path or directory), its format, or how it affects the preview/export. The description adds little semantic value beyond the schema.
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?
The description clearly states the tool previews or exports a SemVer Markdown changelog and returns only its path improvements over a mere label. It also distinguishes itself by noting that sprint_close writes the canonical changelog automatically, which helps differentiate from related tools.
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 this tool (for preview/export) and mentions that sprint_close handles writing canonical changelog, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternative tools for similar tasks. Usage is somewhat inferred rather than fully explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.