GitFlic MCP Server

gitflic_branch_delete

DestructiveIdempotent

Remove obsolete or merged branches by deleting a specified branch from a GitFlic project using its project and branch name.

Instructions

Delete a 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": {
      "project": "<project>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "gitflic_branch_delete"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`raw`	No	Return the full, un-slimmed GitFlic response for THIS call (no token compression). Use when the default slim view dropped a field you need.
`name`	Yes
`project`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.5.1Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

D1.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds nothing on top: it does not say whether commits are lost, whether the default branch is refused, or what permissions are needed for a destructive remote mutation.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

Three words is technically short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness: there is no front-loaded content because there is no content. What exists is front-loaded but empty.

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

Completeness1/5

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

A destructive, irreversible-sounding write operation with three parameters and no output schema demands far more than a three-word sentence. An agent has no basis to decide when this is safe to call or what the required arguments should contain.

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 coverage is only 33% - only the auxiliary 'raw' flag is documented, while the two required parameters, 'project' and 'name', have no descriptions. The description does not compensate at all, giving no hint about whether 'project' is a slug or ID or how 'name' resolves against remote branch names.

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

Purpose2/5

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

"Delete a branch." restates the tool name gitflic_branch_delete almost verbatim and adds no scope, no target repo semantics, and no differentiation from sibling deletion tools such as gitflic_branch_protection_delete. It is technically accurate but conveys nothing the name does not already convey.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (e.g. creating or inspecting branches first), and no caution about deleting a default or protected branch despite this being a destructive operation. The agent must infer all selection logic from the name alone.

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

Deploy Server