list_releasesRetrieve releases for a repository using its owner and repo name, with optional filters for draft and pre-release status. Use it to view or audit version history.
List releases of a repository.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number (default 1) | |
| repo | Yes | Repository name | |
| draft | No | ||
| limit | No | Results per page (default 30, max 100) | |
| owner | Yes | Repository owner (user or organization) | |
| pre_release | No |
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=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond the title—no pagination behavior, no rate limit details, no return format, and no mention of how filtering works. With annotations carrying the behavioral load, the description's lack of added context merits a low score.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized on its face, though the extreme brevity contributes to under-specification rather than serving conciseness alone. A 4 reflects efficient structure while acknowledging that more detail could have been included without becoming verbose.
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?
For a list tool with six parameters, including two filters (draft, pre_release) that lack schema descriptions, the description is incomplete. It does not mention pagination, default limits, or how to filter releases. Even with annotations covering safety and no output schema required, critical operational context is missing.
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 67%, with six parameters (owner, repo, page, limit, draft, pre_release). The description mentions no parameters at all, so it adds zero meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain the purpose of the draft or pre_release filters, which are undocumented in the schema, nor does it clarify pagination 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?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'List releases of a repository.' It is clear and unambiguous about the core operation. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings such as get_latest_release or get_release_by_tag, which also retrieve release data, so a 5 is not warranted.
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 guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_latest_release, get_release_by_tag, or create_release. No prerequisites or filtering context is provided. The description offers only the bare purpose, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.