Get the single latest release (version tag, publish date, and GitHub release-notes link) for ONE NAMED Celestia repo: app, node, core, rollkit, or openrpc. Celestia-specific. Requires a package name as input.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| package | Yes | Repo or package name: "app", "node", "core", "rollkit", "openrpc", or a full owner/repo. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that exactly one release is returned, the kind of data returned, the Celestia-specific scope, and the need for a package input. It does not mention error behavior or rate limits, but for a simple read-only getter this is reasonably transparent.
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?
Two tight sentences with no filler. The core output and scope are front-loaded, and the constraint ('ONE NAMED Celestia repo') is explicit. Every sentence contributes useful 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 names the return fields, which matters because there is no output schema. The single parameter is fully documented in the schema. The only minor gap is clarifying behavior for unknown or non-Celestia package names, but for a low-complexity retrieval tool this is adequate.
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%, and the description adds little beyond the schema: it lists some allowed values and says a package name is required. This meets the baseline but does not add meaningful new semantic detail.
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?
Clearly states the action ('Get'), the resource ('the single latest release'), and the expected output fields (version tag, publish date, GitHub release-notes link). It also narrows the scope to a specific Celestia repo, distinguishing it from broader release/search tools like get_recent_changes or search_release_notes.
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 gives clear context: it is Celestia-specific, requires a package name, and works for one named repo among a small list. It does not explicitly state when to prefer an alternative tool, but the scope is precise enough to guide selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools target clearly distinct content types and actions, and descriptions carefully carve out boundaries (e.g. get_network_state vs get_network_stats, get_discussion vs get_github_discussion). However, the overlapping get_/find_/search_ families plus the very similar network_state/network_stats names leave some edge cases where an agent could select the wrong tool.
The dominant convention is verb_noun (find_*, get_*, list_*, search_*), and get/list/find roughly map to id-based retrieval, browsing, and discovery. Deviations like learning_path, ecosystem_dependency_graph, and semantic_search break the pattern, and the get_ vs find_ vs search_ boundaries are not perfectly predictable.
43 tools is on the high side for a single MCP server; even though the Celestia knowledge domain is broad, the surface is heavy and will increase selection cost. Most tools are individually useful, but the set would benefit from consolidation, e.g. merging release tools or search variants.
The server covers an unusually broad range of content types—CIPs, docs, forum, GitHub issues/discussions, releases, videos, whitepapers, ecosystem, and network state—with list/get/search access for most. Minor gaps remain, such as no dedicated blog retrieval and get_issue_status only returning status rather than full issue body, but core knowledge workflows have no dead ends.