Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Branchwright MCP

Branchwright MCP

by KinsonLai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

list_branches

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve explicit branch IDs and origin revisions for a campaign to map forked timelines and trace lineage; no global active branch is returned.

Instructions

List explicit branch IDs and origin revisions. There is no global active branch.

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": {
      "campaign_id": "<campaign_id>"
    },
    "name": "list_branches"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
campaign_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful data-model context ('no global active branch') but says nothing about pagination, ordering, auth, or result size.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the return content, and the clarifying note follows with zero filler. Nothing could be trimmed without losing information.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple list tool with annotations carrying the safety profile and no output schema, the description adequately covers what is returned but omits the required campaign_id scope and any notion that branches are per-campaign. That omission leaves an agent guessing about the one required input.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions the required campaign_id parameter, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema. The name is fairly self-explanatory, which keeps this above 1, but the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List explicit branch IDs and origin revisions') and adds a scope clarification ('no global active branch') that distinguishes it from any notion of a global state. It does not name a sibling tool like create_branch, so it falls just short of the top tier.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: the implicit guidance is that this is the read-only way to discover branches, and the note about no global active branch prevents one misuse. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no alternative named (e.g., create_branch for mutation), and no prerequisite explanation.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools