mcp-repo-release-tools

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Land a finished branch: fast-forward, remove worktree, delete branch

rrt_git_land

Destructive

Safely land a Git branch in one local operation: fast-forward it onto a target, remove its worktree, and delete the branch, with checks and dry-run by default.

Instructions

Fast-forward onto to branch, remove the branch's worktree, and delete it.

One call, one process: three separate git calls cannot do this safely, because a hook can re-dirty the worktree between them. All checks run before any change. Local only — never pushes. Re-running after a failure skips finished steps. restore_generated discards [tool.rrt.git].generated changes in the worktree first. dry_run=True by default.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "branch": "<branch>"
    },
    "name": "rrt_git_land"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`onto`	No	main
`branch`	Yes
`dry_run`	No
`keep_branch`	No
`restore_generated`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`onto`	Yes
`error`	No
`notes`	No
`steps`	No
`branch`	Yes
`landed`	No
`details`	No
`dry_run`	Yes
`worktree`	No
`cwd_removed`	No
`branches_after`	No
`branches_before`	No
`worktrees_after`	No
`worktrees_before`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.19.0Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond destructiveHint=true, the description discloses important behavior: all checks run before changes, hooks could re-dirty the worktree between separate git calls, it never pushes, re-running skips completed steps, restore_generated discards generated changes, and dry_run defaults to true. This is exactly the safety and side-effect context needed for a destructive three-step operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the core operation, then adds the safety rationale and key parameter defaults. Every sentence contributes useful information and there is no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive multi-step git operation with an output schema, the description covers the critical safety model, idempotency, local-only scope, and two parameter behaviors. It is mostly complete, but the unexplained keep_branch parameter leaves a meaningful gap for a tool with incomplete schema documentation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description helps by explaining dry_run's default and restore_generated's discard behavior, and it implies that onto is the fast-forward target and branch is the branch being landed. However, keep_branch is not explained at all, and branch/onto formats are not clarified, so parameter coverage is only partial.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states precise verbs and resources: fast-forward onto a branch, remove its worktree, and delete the branch. It also makes the scope clear with 'Local only — never pushes' and explains that the operation is atomic by design, so an agent can distinguish it from ordinary git branch cleanup.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives clear context for when to use the tool: landing a finished branch in one safe process, with checks before any change and safe re-running after failure. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternative tools, which keeps it below the top score.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.