MCP OpsBridge

github_list_branches

List all branches in a GitHub repository using the owner/repo format. Set an optional limit to control the number of branch names returned.

Instructions

List all branches in a repository

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_list_branches"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`repo`	Yes	Owner/repo format
`limit`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Aug 10, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The description claims to list 'all' branches, but the input schema includes a limit parameter with a default of 30, meaning the tool may return only a subset. This inconsistency is not disclosed. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency and fails to mention pagination, output format, or error handling.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is structurally efficient, though the word 'all' is slightly misleading given the limit parameter. The brevity earns a high score for conciseness, but it sacrifices necessary detail.

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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the limit parameter's impact, the return format, or potential errors. For a simple list tool, it provides just enough to understand the basic function but falls short of what an agent needs to invoke it correctly in all scenarios.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 50% (repo is described, limit is not). The description adds no information about the limit parameter, its default value, or its effect on results. It fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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?

The description clearly states the action (list) and the resource (branches in a repository). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like github_list_repos or github_get_commits by focusing specifically on branches.

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 usage when needing to list branches, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. It is minimally acceptable but lacks clear contextual direction.

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