list_branchesRetrieve branches from a Forgejo or Gitea repository by owner and repo name. Use it to inspect available branches before selecting one for commits, issues, or pull requests.
List branches of a repository.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number (default 1) | |
| repo | Yes | Repository name | |
| limit | No | Results per page (default 30, max 100) | |
| owner | Yes | Repository owner (user or organization) |
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=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no pagination behavior, no note that results are scoped to a repository's default branch set, and no indication of auth requirements.
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?
A single short sentence with no filler and the resource front-loaded, which is appropriate for a simple list operation. It is arguably under-specified rather than over-long, but nothing wastes the agent's attention.
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 paginated list tool with full annotation coverage and a fully documented schema, the description is minimally adequate. It omits pagination expectations and the fact that results are page-limited, but the schema covers those details.
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 description coverage is 100%, with page, limit, owner, and repo all documented in the schema with defaults and bounds. The description adds no parameter detail, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
The description states a specific verb (List) and resource (branches of a repository), so the agent knows exactly what the call retrieves. It does not differentiate from siblings like create_branch or delete_branch, but the read-vs-write distinction is clear from the verb.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. that owner/repo must exist and be accessible), and no mention of alternatives such as list_tags or list_commits for adjacent listing needs. The agent must infer all usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.