github-mcp

github_repos_add_team_access_restrictions

Add team access restrictions to a GitHub branch, specifying which teams can push or merge.

Instructions

Add team access restrictions

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": {
      "owner": "<owner>",
      "repo": "<repo>",
      "branch": "<branch>"
    },
    "name": "github_repos_add_team_access_restrictions"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`owner`	Yes	owner
`repo`	Yes	repo
`branch`	Yes	branch
`body`	No	Request body (JSON object)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.0.2Apr 27, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits, but it only states the action. It does not disclose required permissions, side effects (e.g., overwriting existing restrictions), rate limits, or the structure of the request body, leaving critical behavioral aspects opaque.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is extremely short (4 words), but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It lacks structure, sections, or any elaboration that would help an agent understand the tool's usage.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given the complexity of the tool (nested body parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain what team access restrictions are, how to specify them in the body, or what the result looks like, leaving an agent with insufficient information to use the tool correctly.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Although schema coverage is 100%, the descriptions are trivial ('owner', 'repo', 'branch', 'Request body (JSON object)'). The description adds no additional meaning, especially for the 'body' parameter which is a complex nested object left undocumented.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description 'Add team access restrictions' clearly indicates the action (add) and the resource type (team access restrictions), but it lacks specifics about the target (repo branch) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'set_team_access_restrictions' or 'remove_team_access_restrictions' beyond the verb.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'set_team_access_restrictions' or 'remove_team_access_restrictions'. There is no context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or scenarios where adding restrictions is appropriate.

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

Deploy Server