coolify-mcp

List repository branches

getGithubAppBranches

Read-only

List branches of a repository accessible to a GitHub App by providing the app ID, owner, and repo name to retrieve available branches for deployment.

Instructions

List branches of a repository accessible to a GitHub App.

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": {
      "github_app_id": "<github_app_id>",
      "owner": "<owner>",
      "repo": "<repo>"
    },
    "name": "getGithubAppBranches"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`repo`	Yes
`owner`	Yes
`github_app_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.1.5Aug 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true. The description adds the contextual constraint 'accessible to a GitHub App', which is useful, but it doesn't disclose any additional behaviors such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or output structure. It does not contradict annotations.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential purpose without any fluff. Every word earns its place.

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 simple list tool with annotations and no output schema, the description is sufficient to understand the tool's basic function and the GitHub App access scope. It does not describe return format, but 'List branches' implies a list of branch names, which is adequate for this simplicity level.

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% and the description does not explain any of the three parameters. 'github_app_id' is hinted at by the tool name and description, but there is no explicit guidance on how repo, owner, and github_app_id relate or are used.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('branches'), and adds scope ('accessible to a GitHub App'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like getGithubAppRepositories that list repositories.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context that this tool lists branches within the context of a GitHub App's access. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but no competing branch-listing sibling exists, so the intended usage is clear.

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

Deploy Server