Branchwright MCP

read_history

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve committed branch history newest first, with pagination using before_revision. Read origin history separately, clamped to the fork point.

Instructions

Read complete committed events, newest first. Follow next_before_revision without changing branch. Origin history is separate and clamped to the fork point.

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>",
      "branch_id": "<branch_id>"
    },
    "name": "read_history"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`origin`	No
`branch_id`	Yes
`campaign_id`	Yes
`before_revision`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Oct 18, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: newest-first ordering, branch-invariance, and origin being separate and clamped to the fork point. Pagination mechanism is hinted via next_before_revision.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Three dense sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. Slightly cryptic field naming (next_before_revision vs the before_revision param) keeps it from a 5.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers ordering, pagination, and origin/branch behavior well, which is what an agent needs to call it correctly. Remaining gaps (limit bounds, id semantics) are minor.

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?

Schema coverage is 0% across 5 params, so the description must carry the load. It meaningfully explains origin semantics and before_revision pagination, but limit, campaign_id, and branch_id are left undocumented, so compensation is only partial.

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 ('Read complete committed events'), plus ordering ('newest first'), which separates it from sibling read tools like read_canon or get_state. It does not explicitly name a sibling it replaces, so it stops short of a 5.

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 implied by 'complete committed events' and the origin note, giving context on when origin vs branch applies. However, no alternative tool is named and no explicit when-to-use vs read_canon/get_state guidance is given, so it lands at minimum-viable.

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

Deploy Server