Skip to main content
Glama

Gitea: List branches

gitea_list_branches
Read-only

List all branches in a Gitea repository with commit details and protection status, so you can inspect branch state and manage repository workflows.

Instructions

[UNIFIED] List all branches in a Gitea repository with commit information and protection status.

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": {
      "site": "<site>",
      "owner": "<owner>",
      "repo": "<repo>"
    },
    "name": "gitea_list_branches"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNo
repoYes
siteYes
limitNo
ownerYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv3.14.0
  2. Removedv3.13.1
  3. First observedv3.4.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the returned fields (commit information and protection status), but it says nothing about pagination behavior despite exposing page/limit parameters, nor about ordering of results.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states resource, scope, and return contents with no filler. The "[UNIFIED]" prefix is the only noise, but it is minor and does not bury the operative clause.

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?

For a five-parameter paginated tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, the description leaves too much unspecified: pagination semantics, the meaning of site vs owner vs repo, and the actual response shape. An agent could call it, but only by guessing at parameter formats.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% across five parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It vaguely implies the repo parameter with "in a Gitea repository" but leaves site, owner, page, and limit entirely unexplained, including what the page/limit defaults of 1 and 30 mean in practice.

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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ("List all branches in a Gitea repository") plus the payload contents (commit information and protection status). It is clear on its own, but it makes no attempt to distinguish this read tool from the write sibling gitea_create_branch or other list tools.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is for enumerating branches rather than creating or comparing them.

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