release-mcp

release_status

View the release DAG, showing node states, tags, pipeline URLs, and gates for any coordinate.

Instructions

Read-only view of the release DAG: node states, tags, pipeline URLs, gates.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "coordinate": "<coordinate>"
    },
    "name": "release_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`coordinate`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 10, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description declares the tool as read-only, indicating no destructive side effects. However, with no annotations, it lacks details about permissions, caching behavior, or real-time constraints. The disclosure is adequate but not extensive.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the key purpose. It could be improved by adding a brief explanation of the parameter, but overall it's efficient.

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?

Given the output schema exists, return values are covered. However, the description does not explain the parameter, which is critical for correct invocation. For a simple tool with one param, the description is mostly adequate but incomplete.

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

Parameters1/5

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

The single parameter 'coordinate' has no description in the schema (0% coverage) and the tool description does not explain what it represents. For a tool with zero parameter documentation, the description fails to add any meaning, leaving agents to guess.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Description clearly states the tool provides a read-only view of the release DAG, listing specific elements like node states, tags, pipeline URLs, and gates. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like release_approve (which writes) and list_releases (which might list releases but not DAG details).

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies a read-only use case for inspecting DAG status, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like get_manifest or release_explain. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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

Deploy Server