mcp-github-enterprise

List organization rulesets

list_org_rulesets

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists an organization's rulesets to inspect org-wide branch protection policies that replace per-repository settings.

Instructions

List the organization's rulesets (the modern, org-wide replacement for per-repo branch protection).

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": {
      "org": "<org>"
    },
    "name": "list_org_rulesets"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`org`	Yes	Organization login (must be within GHE_ORG_ALLOWLIST when that is set)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds only the conceptual framing about rulesets replacing branch protection; it says nothing about pagination, result volume, or permission scope beyond what the schema's allowlist note provides.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with the resource named first and the disambiguating parenthetical trailing it. No filler, and the most useful routing cue is placed where it will be read.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter read-only listing tool with complete annotations and full schema coverage, the description is essentially sufficient. The minor gap is listing behavior — whether results are paginated or bounded — which is not covered by annotations or an output schema.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including the GHE_ORG_ALLOWLIST constraint, so the schema carries the full burden. The description adds no meaning about the org parameter and does not mention the allowlist precondition itself, which is the baseline-3 outcome for a fully documented single param.

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 (list the organization's rulesets) and disambiguates it against the closest sibling concept by calling rulesets 'the modern, org-wide replacement for per-repo branch protection.' An agent can distinguish this from get_branch_protection without opening a schema, though the sibling is not named explicitly.

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 parenthetical implies when to reach for this tool — org-wide policy rather than per-repo protection — which is useful implied guidance. However, it never states when not to use it, nor does it route the agent to a named alternative such as get_branch_protection or assess_org_posture.

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