Memory Journal MCP Server

Get Release Info

get_release_info

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve release commit data for a specified Git reference or HEAD to review changes and verify what shipped between versions.

Instructions

Get latest release commits

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ref`	No	Git reference (branch, tag, commit). Default: HEAD
`use_test_db`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`code`	No	Error code (e.g. VALIDATION_ERROR, INTERNAL_ERROR)
`error`	No	Human-readable error message
`commits`	No
`details`	No	Additional error context
`success`	Yes
`category`	No	Error category (validation, query, connection, internal)
`changelog`	No
`suggestion`	No	Suggested fix for the error
`recoverable`	No	Whether the error is recoverable
`aggregated_errors`	No	Details of individual errors in a multi-step operation

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv9.0.0Nov 2, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description is basic ('Get latest release commits'). Since the annotations provide a full safety profile (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint), the description adds minimal behavioral value beyond stating the function. It is a minimum viable score.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The definition is extremely concise, delivering its main point in a single, direct sentence without any fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

It is sufficiently complete for a low-complexity tool given the presence of robust annotations. However, it is not detailed enough to help the AI confidently configure complex inputs like the 'ref' parameter based solely on the description.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 50% schema coverage, the description does not add meaningful context regarding how parameters like 'use_test_db' affect the results. It relies solely on the schema documentation, meeting the minimum viable score.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it retrieves commits related to the latest release, which is helpful. However, it is generic and does not distinguish this tool from other sibling tools that also deal with commit history or branches.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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 like 'get_commit_history' or 'search_commits'. The description merely states what it does, offering no context for the best use case.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server