GitFlic MCP Server

gitflic_branch_protection_create

DestructiveIdempotent

Create a branch-protection rule that controls push and merge permissions for matching branch patterns, with optional force-push, auto-merge, and code-owner approval settings.

Instructions

Create a branch-protection rule.

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>",
      "branchTemplate": "<branchTemplate>",
      "allowedToPush": "<allowedToPush>",
      "allowedToMerge": "<allowedToMerge>"
    },
    "name": "gitflic_branch_protection_create"
  }
}

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.
`project`	Yes
`autoMerge`	No
`allowedToPush`	Yes
`allowForcePush`	No
`allowedToMerge`	Yes
`branchTemplate`	Yes	Branch pattern (e.g. master, release/*)
`codeOwnerApproval`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.5.1Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that: it doesn't say what the rule's defaults are, whether an existing rule on the same pattern is replaced (relevant given idempotentHint), or what happens on conflicting rules.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The single sentence is front-loaded and free of padding, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficiency. There is no wasted wording, yet only two words of substance beyond the tool name.

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, open-world mutation taking 8 parameters with no output schema, the definition says almost nothing. An agent has no way to learn required permissions, the effect of the enum values on push/merge rights, or how to confirm success.

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

Parameters1/5

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

With 8 parameters, 4 of them required, and only 25% schema description coverage, the description needs to compensate by explaining fields like project, allowedToPush, allowedToMerge, autoMerge, allowForcePush and codeOwnerApproval. It adds no parameter meaning whatsoever, leaving required-field semantics entirely to an under-documented schema.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The sentence names a specific verb (Create) and resource (branch-protection rule), so the basic action is clear. However, it is essentially a restatement of the tool name/title and does nothing to distinguish this from siblings like gitflic_branch_protection_edit or gitflic_branch_protection_delete beyond the verb itself.

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 prerequisites such as required project permissions or admin rights, and no reference to the edit/delete/list siblings that operate on the same resource. The agent must infer everything 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