List releases for a fleet, team, or organization by ID. Use skip and top parameters to page through release records and retrieve the exact set you need.
List releases for a fleet.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| top | No | ||
| skip | No | ||
| parent_id | No | Fleet, team, or organization ID when applicable |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic listing action, such as pagination behavior (top/skip) or whether results are ordered. It doesn't contradict annotations.
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, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without waste. It could be slightly more informative about pagination or scoping, but it earns its place as a concise summary.
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 simple read-only list tool with annotations covering safety, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks guidance on how parent_id affects results (fleet vs team vs org), pagination behavior, and how it relates to sibling list tools. The absence of an output schema means the agent gets no return-format hints, but the description doesn't compensate.
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 33% (only parent_id has a description). The description itself doesn't explain top or skip parameters, but their names and defaults (25, 0) are fairly self-explanatory as pagination controls. The parent_id description in the schema is clear, but the tool description doesn't add meaning beyond that.
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 'List releases for a fleet' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly identifying the operation. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like balena_get_release (single release) and balena_list_services (different resource), though it doesn't explicitly name them.
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 a read-only listing operation for a fleet, which is clear enough for basic use. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like balena_get_release or balena_list_services, nor does it mention the optional parent_id parameter's role in scoping.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.