github-fetcher

GitHub branches

github_branches

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists repository branches with their head SHA and protection status, helping you inspect branch state and protections during code review or automation.

Instructions

List branches with their head sha and protection state.

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": {
      "repo": "<repo>"
    },
    "name": "github_branches"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`page`	No	Page number, starting at 1
`repo`	Yes	Repository in owner/name form
`fresh`	No	Bypass the local cache
`per_page`	No	Items per page, default 20

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 1, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the returned fields (head sha, protection state), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about the local cache or what the 'fresh' bypass implies for result freshness.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the returned-field detail.

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?

With no output schema, the description bears the burden of explaining return values and does so only in outline (head sha, protection state). Pagination behavior and the caching/fresh trade-off are left entirely to the schema, which is adequate but thin for a list tool.

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 all four parameters (repo, page, per_page, fresh) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or defaulting detail beyond that; baseline 3 applies.

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 branches') plus the fields returned, which an agent can match to intent immediately. It doesn't differentiate from siblings explicitly, but no sibling lists branches, so ambiguity is low. The repo scoping implied by the required parameter is not restated.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g. github_tree or github_commits for inspecting branch contents) and no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only inferable from the verb 'List branches'.

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