Checks whether a branch name is protected by safety rules, helping AI agents avoid unsafe Git operations.
Check if a branch name is considered protected by safety rules.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| branch | Yes | Branch name to check. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral-disclosure burden. It says the tool checks protection but does not state that it is read-only, what 'safety rules' means, whether authentication is required, or what the return value looks like.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple predicate tool.
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?
The tool is simple and has no output schema, so the description should ideally clarify the return behavior (e.g., boolean) or what constitutes 'protected.' It stops short of that, leaving minor gaps for an agent to infer.
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?
The single parameter has 100% schema description coverage ('Branch name to check'), so the schema already fully documents it. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline expectation for high coverage.
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 uses a specific verb, 'Check,' and a precise resource, 'branch name considered protected by safety rules.' It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from any sibling (none of the listed siblings are protection checks).
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?
Usage is implied by the description: use it when you need to determine whether a branch is protected. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.