Create a new branch in a Tolgee project by forking from an existing branch. Only available for projects with branching enabled (enterprise feature).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Name of the new branch | |
| projectId | No | ID of the project (required for PAT, auto-resolved for PAK) | |
| originBranchId | Yes | ID of the branch to fork from |
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, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful context about forking behavior and the enterprise constraint, but it does not disclose potential side effects, permission requirements, or return values, which are expected for a mutation tool.
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 two sentences with no fluff, front-loading the essential action and then adding a key constraint. Every word 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?
For a 3-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides the core purpose and a critical prerequisite, but it omits details like response format or behavior when branching is not enabled. It is adequate but not fully comprehensive.
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?
All parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'forking from an existing branch,' which aligns with originBranchId but adds no new information beyond the schema's existing parameter description.
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 'Create a new branch in a Tolgee project by forking from an existing branch,' specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like create_project and create_keys by focusing on branch creation.
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 a clear constraint: 'Only available for projects with branching enabled (enterprise feature),' which tells users when not to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide broader when-to-use guidance beyond this prerequisite.
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 distinct entities and actions, but a few pairs like create_keys/set_translation and list_keys/search_keys have overlapping functionality. The descriptions clearly differentiate their use cases, so ambiguity is limited.
All tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (create_, delete_, get_, list_, set_, etc.), making the API predictable. The only slight deviation is machine_translate, but it still reads as a single action verb.
With 22 tools, the server covers many aspects of translation management, but the count is slightly above the ideal range. Each tool has a clear purpose, though some could potentially be consolidated without loss of functionality.
The core key and translation lifecycle is well covered, but there are notable gaps: languages only support create and list (no update/delete), tags can be added but not removed, and projects lack get/update/delete operations. These omissions may require workarounds.
