Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
UnClick MCP Server

UnClick MCP Server

by malamutemayhem
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

neon_list_branches

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists all branches in a Neon project so you can review and select database branches for agent workflows.

Instructions

List all branches in a Neon project.

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": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>"
    },
    "name": "neon_list_branches"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
api_keyNo
project_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.1.9
  2. Removed
  3. Addedv0.1.5

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the project-scoping context and the fact that all branches are returned (no filtering), but says nothing about pagination or result size limits.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the verb-resource-scope ordering is ideal. It is efficient but arguably too terse given the undocumented parameters.

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?

For a simple read-only list tool with annotations carrying the safety profile and no output schema, the minimum is met. However, the description leaves pagination behavior, auth expectations for api_key, and project_id format entirely undocumented, which an agent needs to call it reliably.

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%, so neither project_id nor api_key is documented anywhere. The description implies a project identifier is required via 'in a Neon project' but never explains the parameter or what api_key is for (likely auth). With two undocumented parameters, this is a real gap.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('List all branches') scoped to 'a Neon project', which is unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings like neon_create_branch or neon_execute_sql, so it stops short of a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives (e.g. neon_create_branch for creating, neon_list_databases for other resources). An agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools