Find a local or remote branch by issue key (e.g., PROJ-123). Returns the branch name if found, otherwise null.
Buscar si existe una rama local o remota que contenga un issue key (ej: PROJ-123). Devuelve la rama si existe o null.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| issueKey | Yes | Clave del issue (ej: PROJ-123) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.15Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosure. It adequately reveals that the tool searches both local and remote branches and returns null when no match exists. It does not mention potential side effects or fetch behavior, but for a read-only lookup the key behavioral traits are disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, the matching condition is stated immediately, and the return behavior is included without unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter lookup tool, the description covers the operation, the search scope, and the return value (branch or null). There is no output schema, but the return behavior is described. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and call this tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already documents `issueKey` with 100% coverage and an example. The description adds slight semantic value by clarifying that the branch name must 'contenga' the issue key, but it mostly restates what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Buscar') and resource ('una rama local o remota'), and clarifies the matching condition ('contenga un issue key'). It also specifies the return value ('Devuelve la rama si existe o null'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling branch-management tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context: use this tool to check whether a branch matching an issue key already exists locally or remotely. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the search-oriented purpose is clear enough for an agent to decide when to invoke it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.