Create a release note by specifying version, title, and Markdown body, with optional tags and status. Requires an API token to submit.
新しいリリースノートを作成します。APIトークンが必要です。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tags | No | タグ（配列形式） | |
| title | Yes | リリースノートのタイトル（最大200文字） | |
| status | No | ステータス（デフォルト: draft） | |
| body_md | Yes | リリースノート本文（Markdown形式） | |
| version | Yes | バージョン番号（セマンティックバージョニング形式。例: 1.0.0） |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that an API token is required, which is a useful auth constraint, but it does not describe side effects, default status behavior, return values, or whether the operation is reversible. Very little is disclosed beyond the obvious creation action.
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 extremely concise: two short sentences, purpose first, prerequisite second. There is no redundant or filler content, and the structure makes the key information immediately accessible.
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 create mutation with no annotations and no output schema, this description is under-specified. It omits what the successful response looks like, whether status/version are validated or transformed, and any side effects beyond creating a release note. The complete parameter schema mitigates some ambiguity, but an agent still lacks behavioral context needed to understand the full impact of the 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 100%, with each parameter already having a meaningful description in the schema (e.g., version nust be semantic versioning, status defaults to draft). The tool description adds no parameter-level information, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 uses a clear verb+resource structure: 'Creates a new release note.' This unambiguously states the tool's action and object. While it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools, the verb 'create' and qualifier 'new' clearly separate it from list/get/update/delete variants.
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 provides one relevant prerequisite — an API token is required — which gives some usage context. However, it does not explain when to choose this tool over alternatives like update_release_note or delete_release_note. Usage conditions are only implied by the tool name and the word 'create'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.