Update an existing release note by its ID, modifying title, version, status, tags, or Markdown body. Requires an API token and keeps event space announcements current.
既存のリリースノートを更新します。APIトークンが必要です。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | 更新するリリースノートのID | |
| tags | No | タグ（配列形式） | |
| title | No | リリースノートのタイトル | |
| status | No | ステータス | |
| body_md | No | リリースノート本文（Markdown形式） | |
| version | No | バージョン番号 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose an auth requirement, but omits important update semantics such as whether unspecified fields remain unchanged, how status transitions work, or whether the operation is destructive.
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 very concise and front-loaded with the core action. Sentence count is minimal with no redundancy, though it could have used the available space to add update-behavior details 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 state-changing tool with six parameters and no output schema, the description is thin. It provides the basic purpose and auth requirement, but does not explain update behavior, return values, or status constraints, leaving the agent with significant ambiguity.
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%, so the schema already documents all six parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but none is required beyond the baseline; the token note is not tied to any schema parameter.
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 specific verb and resource: it updates an existing release note. The word '既存の' clearly distinguishes this from create_release_note, and the action is distinct from list/get/delete siblings.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only extra condition mentioned is the API token requirement, which is a prerequisite rather than a usage guideline. No exclusions or alternative-tool routing are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.