Create a new branch ref pointing at an existing sha. Mirrors POST /api/v2/repos/.../git/refs. Requires 'repo' scope. Returns {ref, sha}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sha | Yes | Target commit sha (40-hex) | |
| repo | Yes | ||
| owner | Yes | ||
| branch | Yes | New branch name (short form) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context: it is a mutation (creates a branch), requires 'repo' scope, and mirrors an API. It does not discuss error conditions or idempotency, but the additions are sufficient.
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 three sentences: first states purpose, second references the API endpoint, third mentions scope and return value. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no unnecessary words.
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?
For a simple creation tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it explains the action, API mirroring, required scope, and return format. However, it omits potential errors (e.g., branch already exists) and constraints, but overall 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 only 50% (sha and branch have descriptions; owner and repo do not). The tool description does not elaborate on parameters beyond schema, so it fails to compensate for the low coverage. No additional meaning is added for owner or repo.
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 clearly states the tool creates a new branch ref pointing at an existing sha. It uses a specific verb ('create') and resource ('branch'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like glmecron_merge_pr or glmecron_create_pr.
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 provides clear context (mirrors API, requires 'repo' scope) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or any exclusions. The usage is implied by the tool's focus on branch creation.
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.
Several tools have near-identical purposes, such as `gluecron_read_file` and `gluecron_repo_read_file` (both read a file from a repo), and `gluecron_explain_repo` and `gluecron_repo_explain_codebase` (both return cached AI explanation). This creates ambiguity despite minor differences in description. While many tools are distinct, the overlapping pairs force an agent to choose between effectively equivalent operations, lowering disambiguation.
All tools use the `gluecron_` prefix followed by a verb_noun pattern (e.g., `acquire_lease`, `create_issue`, `merge_pr`). A few tools like `gluecron_ai_cost_summary` and `gluecron_repo_explain_codebase` deviate slightly but remain readable and predictable. Overall, the naming convention is largely consistent, making it easy to infer tool function from the name.
With 60 tools, the server far exceeds the 25-tool threshold for 'too many' per the guidelines. Although the server covers a broad developer platform (repository management, issues, PRs, workflows, AI features, etc.), the sheer number of tools makes navigation heavy and risks overwhelming both agents and users. A more focused set would improve coherence.
The tool set is remarkably thorough, covering nearly every lifecycle stage for repositories, issues, pull requests, workflows, branches, commits, and AI-assisted features (chat, test generation, release notes, refactoring, voice-to-PR). Essential CRUD operations are present, and advanced operations like leasing, sandbox provisioning, and multi-repo refactoring are included. There are no obvious gaps for the stated purpose of a developer platform.
