argocd_get_repository_refsGet a repository's branches and tags with paging and counts to inspect available Git refs for Argo CD applications.
Get a repository's branches and tags, each paged separately with its own counts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| repo | Yes | Repository URL | |
| limit | No | Max branches/tags per list (1-500) | |
| offset | No | Result offset for paging | |
| app_project | No | Project scope | |
| force_refresh | No | Bypass the cache |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "result": {
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "result"
- ],
- "type": "object",
- "x-fastmcp-wrap-result": true
-}New value: +nullv0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral detail beyond the annotations and schema: branches and tags are paged independently, each with its own counts, which changes how an agent should drive limit/offset.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and the non-obvious paging nuance is attached to it. Nothing is wasted and nothing essential is buried.
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?
For a read-only, annotated tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and the key paging behavior. It omits any indication of the response shape (e.g. whether counts are totals or page-local) and any permission/auth context, but these are minor omissions here.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description earns an extra point by clarifying that the paging window applies separately to the branch list and the tag list. It adds no guidance on app_project scoping or force_refresh caching, which are covered only by the schema.
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?
States a specific verb (get) and resource (a repository's branches and tags), which separates it from sibling listing tools like argocd_list_repositories or argocd_list_repository_apps. It does not explicitly name a sibling, so it stops just 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.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description says what is returned but gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. that repo must be registered in Argo CD), and names no alternatives for retrieving revision information. The agent must infer the context entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.