Raccoon MCP

Isolated Git worktree task

worktree_task

Destructive

Create, list, or remove Raccoon-managed Git worktrees so concurrent AI chats can develop on isolated branches without sharing one working tree.

Instructions

Create, list or remove Raccoon-managed Git worktrees so concurrent AI chats can develop on isolated branches without sharing one working tree.

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": {
      "action": "<action>"
    },
    "name": "worktree_task"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`cwd`	No	.
`force`	No
`action`	Yes
`branch`	No
`taskId`	No
`baseRef`	No	HEAD
`deviceId`	No
`deviceName`	No
`deleteBranch`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.8.0Oct 20, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the isolation purpose but omits what remove actually destroys, whether branches are deleted, and what force does — meaningful gaps for a multi-action destructive tool, though the annotation lowers the bar.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with the action verbs front-loaded and no filler. Every clause earns its place.

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?

For a destructive, multi-action tool with 9 undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It explains the concept but not what any action requires, returns, or destroys, leaving the agent unable to invoke create or remove 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 description coverage is 0% across 9 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails it. Only weak mapping exists: the verbs 'create/list/remove' correspond to the action enum, but branch, taskId, baseRef, force, deleteBranch, cwd, and the device fields are entirely unexplained.

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 names three specific verbs (Create, list, remove) against a specific resource (Raccoon-managed Git worktrees) and adds the intent (isolated branches for concurrent AI chats). No sibling tool deals with worktrees, so the agent can distinguish it immediately.

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?

It gives the motivating scenario ('concurrent AI chats can develop on isolated branches'), which implies when the tool is useful, but it never says when to prefer create vs list vs remove, nor any alternative or exclusion. Usage is inferable but not explicit.

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

Deploy Server