ForgeMCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

git_branch

Destructive

Create a Git branch from a specified start point or delete a branch, requiring explicit force to remove unmerged branches.

Instructions

Create a branch or delete one, requiring explicit force for unmerged deletion.

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": {
      "action": "<action>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "git_branch"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`name`	Yes
`force`	No
`action`	Yes
`start_point`	No	HEAD

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`error`	No
`changes`	Yes
`updates`	No
`conflicts`	Yes
`operation`	Yes
`head_after`	Yes
`head_before`	Yes
`process_ids`	Yes
`synchronization_error`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.5.1Nov 5, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond that: deleting an unmerged branch fails unless force is explicitly set. It says nothing about irreversibility of deletion, what happens if the branch name already exists, or whether create is idempotent.

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 covering both operations and the force guard, with no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity is also what leaves the gaps noted above.

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?

This is a destructive mutation tool with four parameters and zero schema description coverage; an output schema exists so return values need not be described. Still, two parameters (name, start_point) are undocumented anywhere, and the description never warns that deletion discards commit history.

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%, so the description must carry the parameter burden, and it only partially does. It explains the meaning of action values (create/delete) and the condition for force, but says nothing about name constraints or start_point, which defaults to HEAD.

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 names a specific resource (branch) and the two concrete operations (create, delete), which lets an agent separate it from git_branches (listing) and git_switch (checkout). It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 guidance on when to choose this tool over git_switch or git_branches, and no prerequisites such as being on a clean working tree. The only conditional cue is the force requirement for unmerged deletion, which is a parameter rule rather than a when-to-use statement.

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

Deploy Server