create_branchCreate a new Git branch in a Forgejo or Gitea repository, optionally basing it on a specific existing branch instead of the default branch.
Create a branch from an existing branch (default: the repo's default branch).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| repo | Yes | Repository name | |
| owner | Yes | Repository owner (user or organization) | |
| branch | Yes | New branch name | |
| from_branch | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false (a write), destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the default-branch behavior but omits whether the call fails if the branch already exists, required permissions, and what the response contains — useful context, but not rich.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the action and scope, and the default-branch caveat is compactly parenthesized. Nothing is wasted or buried.
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?
For a straightforward creation tool with annotations covering the write/safety profile and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. The only real gap is error/duplicate-name behavior, which is minor at this complexity.
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?
Schema coverage is 75% and from_branch is the one parameter with no schema description. The description supplies its meaning and default ('default: the repo's default branch'), so it adds real value beyond the schema for exactly the undocumented field.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Create a branch') and names the source ('from an existing branch'), which cleanly separates it from list_branches, delete_branch, and create_repository in the sibling set. It stops short of any explicit sibling routing, so it is clear but not fully differentiating.
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?
The parenthetical explains the default source branch, which implies when the from_branch input is needed, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no prerequisites (e.g., permission needed). Usage is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.