Validate branch names against configured conventions to enforce naming standards and maintain repository consistency.
Validate branch naming conventions with commit-check.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| branch | No | ||
| config | No | ||
| repo_path | No | ||
| config_path | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description lacks any behavioral details such as side effects, output format, or safety considerations. The tool's behavior is entirely opaque.
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 very short but under-specified. It provides minimal information and does not justify its brevity with clarity.
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?
With 4 parameters and no parameter descriptions, the tool is far from complete. The presence of an output schema is not leveraged by the description.
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?
Input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention any parameters. The agent receives no help understanding what 'branch', 'config', etc., mean.
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 clearly states the tool validates branch naming conventions, but the phrase 'with commit-check' is ambiguous and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like validate_commit_message.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools exist for similar validations, but the description offers no context for differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/commit-check/commit-check-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server