Latent Defense MCP Server

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

create_branch

Create a new branch in a repository, optionally from a specified source branch, to isolate changes for development or feature work.

Instructions

Create a new branch in a repository.

Args: repo_id: Repository ID. name: Branch name. source_branch_id: Branch to fork from. If empty, forks from the repo's default 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": {
      "repo_id": "<repo_id>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "create_branch"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`repo_id`	Yes
`name`	Yes
`source_branch_id`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 19, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only lists parameters without describing side effects, required permissions, error conditions (e.g., duplicate branch name), or whether changes are reversible. For a write operation, this is insufficient.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is extremely concise: one title line and a bullet-like list of parameters. Every sentence earns its place; no wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers basic use but lacks information about return values (despite having an output schema), error handling, or dependencies. For a tool in a complex system with many siblings, more context would be helpful.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds essential meaning: it explains repo_id as 'Repository ID', name as 'Branch name', and source_branch_id as 'Branch to fork from' with default behavior. This significantly aids parameter understanding beyond the bare schema names.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the action ('Create') and the resource ('a new branch in a repository'). It is distinct from sibling tools like list_branches or get_branch.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains the basic use case but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_branch (no alternative mentioned) or prerequisites. It lacks explicit when-not or context for selecting among siblings.

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

Deploy Server