github-ruleset-mcp

check_protection

Check if a GitHub branch has protection rules applied. Provide repository owner and name, and an optional branch (defaults to main).

Instructions

Check if a branch has protection rules applied

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": {
      "owner": "<owner>",
      "repo": "<repo>"
    },
    "name": "check_protection"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`repo`	Yes	Repository name
`owner`	Yes	Repository owner
`branch`	No	Branch name (default: main)	main

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 1, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without indicating return value, error behavior (e.g., branch missing, no protection rules), or read-only nature. This is a significant gap for a tool with no output schema.

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 a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It contains zero wasted words and is easy to scan.

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 tool is relatively simple with well-documented parameters, but the lack of an output schema and behavioral details (e.g., what a positive vs negative result looks like) makes the description incomplete for full context. It is adequate for a minimal check tool but could be richer.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema descriptions cover 100% of the parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, but it doesn't need to because the schema is already clear.

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?

The description clearly states the verb 'check' and the resource 'branch protection rules', making the tool's purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like list_rulesets or apply_ruleset, which could also be related to protection concepts, leaving minor ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the alternatives. There is no mention of scenarios where check_protection is preferred over list_rulesets or apply_ruleset, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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

Deploy Server