Fetch release note details by ID or slug. Returns the complete release note information for the given identifier.
Get details of a specific release note
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The ID or slug of the release note to retrieve |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | ||
| title | No | ||
| slugId | No | ||
| content | No | ||
| releases | No | ||
| createdAt | No | ||
| updatedAt | No | ||
| lastRelease | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., return format, auth needs) beyond what annotations provide, but does not contradict them.
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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool.
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 read-only tool with one parameter and an output schema (documenting return values), the description is sufficient. It covers the core action, though it could mention error conditions or the scope of details.
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 coverage is 100% as the 'id' parameter is well-described inline. The description does not add further parameter semantics, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 'Get details of a specific release note' clearly states the action (Get details) and the resource (release note), and distinguishes it from siblings like linear_getReleaseNotes (likely a list) and other mutation 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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like linear_getReleaseNotes or linear_searchReleases. The description assumes the agent knows to use it when an ID is known, but fails to articulate this or exclude other tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.