Delete a branch from a Tolgee project. IMPORTANT: This is a destructive operation. The AI assistant should always confirm with the user before calling this tool.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectId | No | ID of the project (required for PAT, auto-resolved for PAK) | |
| branchName | Yes | Name of the branch to delete |
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 of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the action is destructive and imposes a mandatory user-confirmation step, which are key behavioral traits. It does not detail side effects or error cases, but covers the most critical information.
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 concise sentences, with the purpose stated first and the warning following. Every word earns its place, and it is instantly scannable.
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 delete operation with two parameters and no output schema, the description is adequately complete. It provides purpose, destructive context, and a usage constraint (confirmation). It lacks detail on failure modes or prerequisites, but given the tool's simplicity, this is acceptable.
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%, with both projectId and branchName already well-described in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so a baseline score of 3 is 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?
The description clearly states 'Delete a branch from a Tolgee project' with a specific verb (delete) and resource (branch). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_keys, making its purpose unambiguous.
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 explicit usage guidance by emphasizing that the operation is destructive and that the assistant must always confirm with the user before calling. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the destructive warning effectively frames when this tool is appropriate.
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.
