Repository Manager

Reset Branch

rm_worktree_reset_branch

DestructiveIdempotent

Reset a worktree branch to a target branch while keeping the canonical checkout and other session work untouched.

Instructions

Reset branch (rm_worktree). Manage git worktrees for concurrent multi-session development (CONCEPT:RM-WORKTREE).

Each session works a repo in its own worktree on its own branch under <WORKTREE_ROOT>/<repo>/<branch> (shared .git, no re-clone), leaving the canonical checkout on its default branch so a working-tree reset never disturbs in-flight session work.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`base`	No	Base branch to fork from / sync against.	main
`into`	No	Target branch for 'merge', or the reset target for 'reset_branch'.	main
`path`	No	Workspace root override.
`repo`	No	Repo basename (e.g. 'epistemic-graph') or absolute path. Omit for 'list'/'prune' across all repos.
`adopt`	No	For 'add': move the canonical checkout's uncommitted WIP onto the new branch via a private ref (never the shared refs/stash stack).
`force`	No	For 'remove': override git's own dirty-tree refusal once lane occupancy has already cleared (never bypasses occupancy itself, D-CDX-15).
`repos`	No	For 'bulk_add': comma-separated repo basenames (default: every workspace repo).
`branch`	No	Worktree branch name (each session uses a distinct branch).
`strategy`	No	For 'sync': 'rebase' or 'merge'.	rebase
`stale_days`	No	For 'audit': an unmerged worktree quiet for longer than this many days is classified 'stale' (review) rather than 'active'.
`prune_merged`	No	For 'audit': DESTRUCTIVE. After classifying, remove every 'merged' worktree (and delete its branch) plus prune 'dangling' admin pointers. Never touches 'active'/'stale' work or orphaned directories.
`delete_branch`	No	For 'remove': also delete the branch.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.5.1Oct 19, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds some contextual safety information ('reset never disturbs in-flight session work') and describes the shared .git / no-re-clone model, but it does not clarify what the reset operation destroys, resets, or requires.

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 description is relatively short, but it is front-loaded with a title restatement followed by a generic worktree-management concept. The operational meaning of 'reset branch' is not front-loaded, and the text spends most of its space on context that applies broadly to sibling worktree tools.

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?

Given 12 parameters, many worktree siblings, and a destructive reset operation, the description omits crucial selection context: how this tool relates to rm_worktree_sync, rm_worktree_merge, rm_worktree_remove, and rm_worktree_prune. The output schema and annotations cover some structured details, but the natural-language definition is not complete enough to help an agent choose this tool confidently.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema itself fully documents all 12 parameters and their mode-specific meanings. The description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description names a verb and resource ('Reset branch'), but it does not explain what resetting the branch actually does, nor does it distinguish this operation from the many sibling worktree tools such as rm_worktree_sync, rm_worktree_merge, or rm_worktree_remove. The rest of the text is broad worktree-concept context rather than a tool-specific purpose statement.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description explains the general worktree model, but does not say when a reset is appropriate, what preconditions exist, or how it differs from sync, merge, or remove.

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

Deploy Server