gitlab-api

Get protected branches

gitlab_get_protected_branches

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve protected branches for a GitLab project to review branch restrictions, access rules, and merge and push permissions.

Instructions

Get information about protected branches in a project.

Args: **kwargs: Additional parameters for the request (e.g., project_id).

Returns: Response: A wrapper containing the original response and a list of Branch models.

Raises: MissingParameterError: If the project_id is missing. ParameterError: If invalid parameters are provided.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "gitlab_get_protected_branches"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ref`	No
`page`	No
`branch`	No
`per_page`	No
`max_pages`	No
`project_id`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed5 schema fields changedv27.3.20Nov 7, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / api_parameters

Removed value: -{
-  "anyOf": [
-    {
-      "additionalProperties": true,
-      "type": "object"
-    },
-    {
-      "type": "null"
-    }
-  ],
-  "default": null
-}

changedInput schema / properties / page / default
```
Previous value: -1New value: +null
```
changedInput schema / properties / per_page / default
```
Previous value: -100New value: +null
```
addedInput schema / properties / project_id / default
```
Added value: +null
```
removedInput schema / required
```
Removed value: -[
-  "project_id"
-]
```

First observedv27.3.13Oct 25, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing that project_id is mandatory (MissingParameterError) and that the result is a wrapper containing a list of Branch models. It says nothing about pagination behavior despite exposing page/per_page/max_pages.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The purpose sentence is front-loaded and the Returns/Raises notes earn their place, but the 'Args: **kwargs' block is pure docstring boilerplate that conveys no information and should be replaced with real parameter guidance.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a six-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the definition omits the semantics of the filtering and paging parameters that determine what data comes back. Only the required-project_id behavior and the rough return shape are covered.

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% across six parameters, and the description only names project_id (inside a generic **kwargs example). The meaningful filters branch and ref, plus the pagination controls, are never explained, so the description does not compensate for the schema 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource (get protected branches in a project), which is clearly distinct from write siblings like gitlab_protect_branch or gitlab_unprotect_branch. It does not distinguish itself from the singular sibling gitlab_get_protected_branch or from gitlab_get_protected_tags, leaving the list-vs-single choice to inference.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (permissions, project scope), and no routing to alternatives such as the singular protected-branch getter. The only usage signal is the implied 'project_id is required' from the Raises block.

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

Deploy Server