GitFlic MCP Server

gitflic_branch_protection_edit

DestructiveIdempotent

Update an existing branch-protection rule to control who can push or merge and enable force pushes, auto-merge, or code-owner approval.

Instructions

Edit 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>",
      "uuid": "<uuid>"
    },
    "name": "gitflic_branch_protection_edit"
  }
}

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.
`uuid`	Yes
`project`	Yes
`autoMerge`	No
`allowedToPush`	No
`allowForcePush`	No
`allowedToMerge`	No
`codeOwnerApproval`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.5.1Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is largely covered. Beyond that the description adds nothing: it does not say whether this replaces or partially patches a rule, which settings are left untouched, whether changes are immediately enforced, or what permissions are required for a destructive operation on branch policy.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with zero waste and the verb front-loaded, so nothing needs cutting. However its size is not appropriate for an 8-parameter destructive mutation tool; concision here amounts to under-specification rather than efficiency.

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?

With eight parameters, mostly undocumented, no output schema, and destructive semantics, the description is far too thin to let an agent call this correctly. The annotations cover the safety profile, which prevents a bottom score, but nothing explains the mutation model or parameter effects.

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?

Schema description coverage is only 13% — just the generic `raw` flag is documented — leaving seven parameters (project, uuid, autoMerge, allowForcePush, allowedToPush, allowedToMerge, codeOwnerApproval) with no meaning in either schema or description. The description does not explain the enum values NO_ONE/DEVELOPER/ADMINS, nor whether omitted booleans are left unchanged or reset, which is critical for a partial-edit tool.

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 states a specific verb ("Edit") and resource ("branch-protection rule"), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not differentiate from the many siblings such as gitflic_branch_protection_create or gitflic_branch_protection_delete, but the verb/resource pairing is still clear.

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 guidance on when to use this versus gitflic_branch_protection_create (new rule) or gitflic_branch_protection_get/list. No prerequisites are stated — e.g. whether the rule must already exist, whether project admin rights are needed, or whether the project/uuid must reference an existing rule.

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

Deploy Server