CNB Remote MCP

by htazq

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Remote

Get a branch

repo_branch_get

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a repository branch and its head commit to inspect branch state or confirm the current commit reference.

Instructions

Get one branch with its head commit.

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": {
      "repo": "<repo>",
      "branch": "<branch>"
    },
    "name": "repo_branch_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`repo`	Yes	Repository path, e.g. "owner/repo" or "group/subgroup/repo"
`branch`	Yes	Branch name

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Nov 5, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the response includes the head commit, but says nothing about behavior for a missing branch, auth requirements, or remote/network implications of openWorldHint.

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 with zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity leaves gaps that are counted against other dimensions.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and complete safety annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It could still note error behavior for a nonexistent branch or what the head commit payload contains.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, with both repo and branch documented including path format examples, so baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema for either parameter.

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?

Specific verb+resource ("Get one branch") plus a distinguishing detail ("with its head commit"). The word "one" implicitly contrasts with the sibling repo_branch_list, though the sibling is never named.

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?

No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative stated. The only hint is the singular "one branch," which weakly implies this is for fetching a known branch rather than enumerating branches.

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