Verify that the current git branch follows conventional naming rules (feature/, bugfix/, hotfix/, release/, main, master, develop) to ensure repository consistency and production readiness.
Check that the current git branch follows conventional naming (feature/, bugfix/, hotfix/, release/, main, master, develop).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cwd | No | Git repository root |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the check is read-only, what side effects may occur, how failures are reported, or what the return value looks like. The only behavioral detail is the list of accepted naming patterns.
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 compact sentence that includes the action, the target resource, and the complete set of naming rules. It is front-loaded and contains no filler or repetition.
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, but with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain what a successful or failed check looks like. It specifies naming conventions but omits the result or behavior after invocation, leaving the agent unable to predict the tool's response.
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 sole parameter cwd is fully documented in the schema with the description 'Git repository root', giving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the baseline holds because the schema already provides the necessary meaning.
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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: check the current git branch, and it enumerates the naming patterns that are accepted. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_tests, check_linting, and check_security by scoping validation to branch naming.
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 description implies the intended use case: validating branch naming conventions, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over sibling check tools or when not to use it. There are no exclusions, alternatives, or workflow context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.