repository_manager_list_branchesReturns a dictionary mapping each project basename to its current active Git branch, helping you identify checked-out branches across managed repositories.
Returns a dictionary mapping project basenames to their current active git branch.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds only the return shape, which is already carried by the output schema, so it contributes little behavioral context beyond structured fields.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence that states the return type and the mapping semantics with zero waste. 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.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter read-only listing tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers what is needed to call it. The one real gap is routing versus the similarly named rm_workspace_list_branches sibling, which is left unexplained.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is no parameter meaning for the description to add or omit.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb ('returns') and resource ('current active git branch') plus the exact shape of the result (project basename → branch). It is clear what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from the near-identically named sibling rm_workspace_list_branches, which an agent could easily pick instead.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description offers no when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. With a sibling named rm_workspace_list_branches in the same namespace, this omission is exactly where guidance is most needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.