Skip to main content
Glama
enesjakozh
nickbaumann98

Release Notes MCP Server

by nickbaumann98
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

릴리스 노트 서버

GitHub 저장소에서 멋진 릴리스 노트를 생성하는 MCP 서버입니다. 커밋을 효율적으로 가져와 유형별로 정리하고, 깔끔하고 읽기 쉬운 형식으로 표시합니다.

특징

  • 🎯 날짜 또는 SHA별 스마트 커밋 필터링

  • 📊 유형(기능, 수정 사항 등)별로 커밋을 그룹화합니다.

  • 🔍 PR 데이터로 커밋을 강화합니다.

  • 📈 자세한 통계 포함

  • 🎨 이모티콘을 사용한 깔끔한 마크다운 서식

  • ⚡ GitHub의 since 매개변수를 사용한 효율적인 API 사용

Related MCP server: GitHub Releases MCP Server

설치

지엑스피1

용법

MCP 구성에 이 서버를 추가하세요:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "release-notes": {
      "command": "node",
      "args": ["/path/to/release-notes-server/build/index.js"],
      "env": {
        "GITHUB_TOKEN": "your-github-token"
      }
    }
  }
}

사용 가능한 도구

릴리스 노트 생성

GitHub 저장소에 대한 릴리스 노트를 생성합니다.

매개변수:

{
  "owner": string,           // Repository owner
  "repo": string,           // Repository name
  "commitRange": {
    "fromCommit"?: string,  // Starting commit SHA
    "toCommit"?: string    // Ending commit SHA
  },
  "format": {
    "type": "markdown",     // Output format
    "groupBy": "type",      // How to group commits
    "includeStats": boolean // Include commit statistics
  }
}

예:

const result = await use_mcp_tool({
  server_name: "release-notes",
  tool_name: "generate_release_notes",
  arguments: {
    owner: "owner",
    repo: "repo",
    commitRange: {
      fromCommit: "abc123" // Get commits from this SHA
    },
    format: {
      type: "markdown",
      groupBy: "type",
      includeStats: true
    }
  }
});

출력 형식

생성된 릴리스 노트에는 다음이 포함됩니다.

  1. 생성 날짜 및 통계가 포함된 헤더

  2. 커밋 유형별로 그룹화된 섹션:

    • 🚀 특징

    • 🐛 수정 사항

    • 📚 문서

    • ⚡ 성능

    • ♻️ 리팩토링

    • 🧪 테스트

    • 🏗️ 빌드

    • 🔧 기타

  3. 다음을 포함한 자세한 통계:

    • 총 커밋 수

    • 주요 변경 사항

    • 유형별 커밋

    • 작성자별 커밋

환경 변수

  • GITHUB_TOKEN : 저장소 접근 권한이 있는 GitHub 개인 액세스 토큰

구현 세부 사항

서버는 다음을 통해 효율적인 커밋 페칭을 구현합니다.

  1. 가능한 경우 API 호출을 줄이기 위해 GitHub의 since 매개변수를 사용합니다.

  2. 필요할 때 SHA 기반 필터링으로 복귀

  3. 페이지 매김을 올바르게 처리하기

  4. 릴리스 노트에 대한 최신 순서 우선 유지

  5. PR 데이터가 있는 경우 커밋을 강화합니다.

특허

MIT

Available Tools

3 tools
analyze_commitsC

Analyze commits and provide statistics

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ownerYes
repoYes
timeRangeNo
commitRangeNo

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does 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 analysis and statistics but fails to describe key traits: whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, how results are formatted, if there are rate limits, or if it's computationally intensive. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is very concise with a single sentence, 'Analyze commits and provide statistics', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, it is arguably too brief given the tool's complexity, bordering on under-specification rather than optimal conciseness.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool has 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and nested objects, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's behavior, output format, or parameter usage adequately. For a statistical analysis tool with multiple input options, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 4 parameters (owner, repo, timeRange, commitRange) are documented in the schema. The description does not compensate by explaining what these parameters mean, their expected formats (e.g., date strings for timeRange, commit hashes for commitRange), or how they interact. This leaves parameters largely undocumented.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description 'Analyze commits and provide statistics' states a general purpose (analyzing commits for statistics) but lacks specificity about what kind of analysis or statistics are provided. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'configure_template' or 'generate_release_notes', which are clearly different functions. The description is vague about the scope and nature of the analysis.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no explicit instructions on prerequisites, context, or exclusions. Given sibling tools like 'generate_release_notes' might also involve commits, the lack of differentiation leaves the agent without clear usage criteria.

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

configure_templateC

Configure a custom template for release notes

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
templateYes

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'configure' but doesn't clarify if this creates a new template, updates an existing one, or performs another action. There's no information on permissions, side effects, or response format, leaving significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond its basic purpose.

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 description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place, contributing to clarity without redundancy.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the complexity of a configuration tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, parameter meanings, and expected outcomes, making it insufficient for an AI agent to fully understand how to invoke the tool correctly in context.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'configure a custom template' but doesn't explain the parameters 'name' and 'template', such as what they represent (e.g., template identifier vs. content) or any constraints. This adds minimal value beyond the schema, failing to adequately address the coverage gap.

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 the action ('configure') and the resource ('a custom template for release notes'), making the tool's purpose understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'analyze_commits' and 'generate_release_notes' by focusing on template configuration rather than analysis or generation. However, it doesn't specify what 'configure' entails (e.g., create, update, or set), keeping it from a perfect score.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing existing templates or specific contexts, nor does it differentiate usage from sibling tools like 'generate_release_notes', which might involve templates. This lack of explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information limits its utility for an AI agent.

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

generate_release_notesC

Generate release notes from commits in a given timeframe or commit range

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ownerYes
repoYes
timeRangeNo
commitRangeNo
formatNo

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the basic function without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention permissions needed, rate limits, output format details, or whether the operation is read-only or mutative, leaving significant gaps for a tool with complex parameters and no output schema.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. However, it could be more structured by explicitly listing key parameters or use cases, but it avoids redundancy and stays focused.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the complexity (5 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter semantics, behavioral context, and output expectations, making it insufficient for an agent to fully understand tool invocation without relying heavily on schema inspection.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but only vaguely references 'timeframe or commit range' without explaining parameters like 'owner', 'repo', or 'format' details. It adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, failing to clarify parameter purposes or usage, which is inadequate given the low coverage and 5 parameters.

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 the action ('generate release notes') and source ('from commits'), specifying the timeframe or commit range as input. It distinguishes the tool's purpose from siblings like 'analyze_commits' by focusing on note generation rather than analysis, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'configure_template'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'analyze_commits' or 'configure_template'. The description implies usage for generating notes from commits but lacks context on prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 3 tool updatesv1.0.0
    • First observedanalyze_commits
    • First observedconfigure_template
    • First observedgenerate_release_notes
Deploy Server
Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Scored across 3 tools

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: analyze_commits focuses on statistics and insights, configure_template handles template customization, and generate_release_notes produces the final output. There is no overlap in functionality, making it easy for an agent to select the right tool without confusion.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (analyze_commits, configure_template, generate_release_notes). The naming is predictable and readable, with no deviations or mixed conventions.

Tool Count4/5

Three tools are reasonable for a release notes server, covering analysis, configuration, and generation. It is slightly lean but well-scoped; adding a tool for managing templates or historical notes could enhance completeness, but the current count is appropriate for core functionality.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers the essential workflow: analyzing commits, configuring templates, and generating release notes. A minor gap exists in operations like updating or deleting templates, but agents can work around this, and the core domain is adequately addressed without dead ends.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

Appeared in Searches