Fetch the release-notes body for one version across celestia-app / celestia-node / celestia-core / rollkit / celestia-openrpc. Celestia-specific. Returns the rendered release body with a link to the GitHub release.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| repo | No | Optional repo hint: app, node, core, rollkit, openrpc. | |
| version | Yes | Version tag, e.g. "9.0.6", "v9.0.6". |
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return content ('rendered release body with a link to the GitHub release') and the Celestia-specific scope, which is useful. It does not mention error cases, authentication, or rate limits, but for a read-only fetch tool this is a meaningful but not severe gap.
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 sentences with no filler. The opening 'Fetch...' immediately states the action and resource, and the second sentence adds useful return-value context. Every part 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?
The description covers the essential elements: what is fetched, from which repos, for which version, and what the response looks like. It lacks explicit caveats like behavior for unknown versions or auth requirements, but for a simple two-parameter fetch with fully documented schema, this is nearly complete.
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 coverage is 100% with both parameters already described with examples ('Optional repo hint: app, node, core, rollkit, openrpc' and 'Version tag, e.g. "9.0.6", "v9.0.6"'). The description adds no new parameter-level detail beyond reconfirming the repo list and version target, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 and resource: fetch the release-notes body for one version across five named Celestia repos. The 'Celestia-specific' qualifier clarifies scope, and the resource is concrete enough to be distinguished from generic release tools, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.
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 when to use the tool: when you need the release-notes body for a specific version. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings like get_latest_release or search_release_notes, nor does it provide exclusions or alternative routing.
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.