woodpecker-mcp

List branches

list_branches

Read-only

List branch names for a Woodpecker repository as reported by its forge, with pagination up to 50 per page. An empty result may mean the forge cannot list branches.

Instructions

Lists branch names of a repository as reported by its forge (Gitea, Forgejo, GitHub, GitLab, ...), paged (up to 50 per page). An empty list can also mean the forge does not support listing branches.

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": {
      "instance": "<instance>",
      "repo": "<repo>"
    },
    "name": "list_branches"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`page`	No	Page number (default 1).
`repo`	Yes	Repository as "owner/name" (e.g. "acme/webapp") or a numeric Woodpecker repo id.
`instance`	Yes	Woodpecker instance name. Configured instances: default.
`per_page`	No	Results per page (default 50, max 50).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.2.0Oct 14, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing per-forge variability (Gitea, Forgejo, GitHub, GitLab) and, crucially, that an empty result may indicate the forge does not support branch listing rather than an empty repository — a real behavioral nuance not derivable from annotations.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded ahead of the paging and empty-result caveats. Every clause carries information an agent can act on.

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?

With no output schema, the description does say what is returned (branch names) and notes pagination and the empty-list ambiguity, which is what an agent needs. It would be stronger if it clarified the return shape or that repo accepts an owner/name string or numeric Woodpecker id, though the schema covers the latter.

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 already documents page, per_page, repo, and instance. The description's 'paged (up to 50 per page)' simply restates the per_page maximum already encoded in the schema, adding no syntax or format detail beyond it. Baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('Lists branch names of a repository') and qualifies the scope as forge-reported. The resource is clearly distinct from siblings such as list_repos, list_pipelines, and list_pull_requests, so an agent can route to it without opening the schema.

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?

The description implies the use case (enumerate a repo's branches) but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor any alternative to consider. It does flag an important interpretation caveat for empty results, which is closer to usage guidance than pure behavior, but the routing guidance itself is only implied.

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