create_releasePublish a release for a repository, creating the tag if needed, and set release details such as name, body, draft, and prerelease status.
Create a release (and its tag if it does not exist yet).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | No | ||
| name | No | ||
| repo | Yes | Repository name | |
| draft | No | ||
| owner | Yes | Repository owner (user or organization) | |
| tag_name | Yes | ||
| prerelease | No | ||
| target_commitish | No | Branch or commit to tag if the tag is new |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds genuine behavioral value by disclosing that a missing tag will be created as a side effect, but says nothing about permissions, error conditions, or what existing tags/releases do.
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?
A single well-formed sentence with no filler, and the resource being created leads the statement. It is tight, though borderline thin for a tool with eight parameters.
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?
Eight parameters at 38% schema coverage, no output schema, and a mutation with only partial annotation coverage — the description does too little. It omits required-field expectations, draft/prerelease behavior, and target_commitish semantics that an agent needs to call it correctly.
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 only 38%, so the schema itself leaves body, name, tag_name, draft, and prerelease unexplained, and the description adds no parameter meaning at all. For an 8-parameter mutation tool this is a real gap; the description should have clarified at least draft/prerelease/body semantics.
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?
States a specific verb (Create) and resource (release), plus a meaningful side effect: creating the tag if it does not exist. It is clearly distinct from read-oriented siblings like list_releases or get_release_by_tag, though it never explicitly names those alternatives.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives such as get_latest_release or get_release_by_tag. The side-effect note about tag creation hints at behavior but is not usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.