Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SmartBear MCP server

SmartBear MCP server

Official
by SmartBear
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Contract Testing: Delete Branch

contract-testing_delete_branch
DestructiveIdempotent

Deletes a specified branch from a Pact participant, removing outdated branch data and keeping contract-testing records organized.

Instructions

Delete a branch from a pacticipant.

Toolset: Branches and Versions

Parameters:

  • pacticipantName (string) required: Name of the pacticipant

  • branchName (string) required: Name of the branch to delete

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
branchNameYesName of the branch to delete
pacticipantNameYesName of the pacticipant

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
successYesThe operation completed; the API returns no body.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.43.0
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "success": {
+      "const": true,
+      "description": "The operation completed; the API returns no body.",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "success"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. Addedv0.40.0
  3. Removedv0.34.0
  4. First observedv0.27.1

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a destructively mutating but idempotent operation. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say what happens to versions associated with the deleted branch, whether dependent versions are removed, or whether the operation requires specific permissions.

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 actual behavioral sentence is one short line and is front-loaded, which is good. However, the parameter list simply duplicates the input schema and the 'Toolset' line adds little for an invoking agent, so a meaningful share of the text earns no place.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover safety semantics, so the description does not need to explain return values. Still, for a destructive operation on a branch, the description omits any consequence information (what is lost, effects on linked versions), leaving a gap for a tool marked destructiveHint=true.

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 both parameters are already fully documented in the schema. The description restates those exact definitions verbatim ('Name of the branch to delete', 'Name of the pacticipant'), adding no new meaning such as format expectations or uniqueness constraints. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Delete a branch from a pacticipant.' An agent can immediately tell this removes a branch object. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as contract-testing_delete_pacticipant or explain its relationship to list_branches/get_branch.

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 guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, and no prerequisites or preconditions (e.g. must the branch exist, must versions be dealt with first). The reader must infer everything about the calling context.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools