Fetch downloadable assets from a GitHub release by owner and repo, returning asset names, sizes, and URLs.
List the downloadable assets of a GitHub release (name, size, url).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tag | No | Release tag; omit or 'latest' for the latest release. | |
| repo | Yes | Repo name, e.g. ghidra | |
| owner | Yes | Repo owner, e.g. NationalSecurityAgency |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears the full behavioral burden; 'List' implies a read-only operation and the parenthetical discloses the returned fields, which is genuinely useful. However, it omits pagination behavior, auth/token requirements, rate limits, and what happens when the release or its assets do not exist.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence that identifies the resource and the return payload with zero filler. Nothing could be trimmed without losing information.
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?
The description partially compensates for the absent output schema by naming the returned fields, and parameters are fully covered by the schema. It is still thin for a GitHub API tool with no annotations, leaving auth requirements, pagination, and empty/error outcomes unaddressed.
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%, including the 'omit or latest' convention for tag, so the schema fully documents all three parameters. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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?
States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('downloadable assets of a GitHub release') and names the returned fields (name, size, url). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling download_release_asset by verb, though it never explicitly contrasts the two.
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 scenario is implied by 'of a GitHub release,' but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid release tag), and no routing to or away from download_release_asset. An agent must infer the boundary between listing and downloading.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.