github_list_releasesList a GitHub repository's releases in reverse chronological order. Use this to track version history and identify the current release.
Lists a repository's releases, newest first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| per_page | No | Number of results per page (1-100) | |
| repo_name | Yes | ||
| repo_owner | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v42.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the ordering behavior ('newest first') but does not mention pagination behavior or other operational details. This is similar to the calibration example that received a 3.
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 sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and immediately provides the ordering detail. Every word earns its place.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity, the presence of an output schema, and annotations that cover the read-only/destructive profile, the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. The only missing details (pagination defaults) are already present in the input schema.
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 25% (only per_page has a description). The tool description does not compensate for the undocumented repo_owner, repo_name, or page parameters, nor does it explain pagination semantics. With low coverage, the description should add this meaning but does not.
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 ('Lists') and resource ('a repository's releases'), and adds ordering ('newest first'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like github_get_release (singular) and create/update/delete release tools.
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 the use case (listing releases) but provides no explicit guidance about when to use alternatives such as github_get_release for a single release, or when to avoid this tool. No exclusions or alternative conditions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.