forgejo-mcp

Delete branch

delete_branch

Destructive

Removes a branch from a Forgejo or Gitea repository using owner, repo, and branch parameters to clean up obsolete or merged branches.

Instructions

Delete a branch.

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": {
      "owner": "<owner>",
      "repo": "<repo>",
      "branch": "<branch>"
    },
    "name": "delete_branch"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`repo`	Yes	Repository name
`owner`	Yes	Repository owner (user or organization)
`branch`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 17, 2026

TDQS

C2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not state that deletion is permanent, whether the branch must be merged first, what permissions are required, or what happens to open PRs referencing it.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The single sentence is front-loaded but is under-specification rather than conciseness — it earns its place only by existing. Nothing about the destructive consequence is surfaced despite that being the one thing a caller needs.

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 an irreversible mutation tool with no output schema, an undocumented required parameter, and only generic annotations. The description leaves the agent without any of the operational context (irreversibility, permission needs, branch-state requirements) required to invoke it safely.

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 coverage is only 67% and the required branch parameter has no description at all. The description text does not compensate by clarifying branch naming (short name vs refs/heads/...), whether owner/repo accept qualified forms, or case sensitivity.

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

Purpose2/5

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

"Delete a branch." is a near-verbatim restatement of the tool name and title, adding no scope, target system, or distinguishing detail. An agent learns nothing it did not already infer from the identifier delete_branch.

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 when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternatives are given. The description does not mention that this targets an existing remote branch, nor does it distinguish itself from sibling create_branch or delete_file.

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

Deploy Server