GitFlic MCP Server

gitflic_branch_protection_get

Read-only

Retrieve a branch-protection rule by project and UUID to inspect its settings for repository access auditing or updates.

Instructions

Get a branch-protection rule by uuid.

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_get"
  }
}

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
`fields`	No	Return only these top-level fields (plus id keys), narrowing the response further.
`project`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.5.1Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond this: no note on permissions required, whether a missing uuid errors (especially relevant because idempotentHint=false), or what the slim versus raw view contains.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

It is a single short sentence with the access path front-loaded and no filler. It earns its brevity, though the size falls short of what this tool's parameters require.

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 tool with four parameters, two of them required, and a 50% description coverage, the description omits what the project parameter is and what a rule response contains. There is no output schema to fill the gap, so more explanation is warranted.

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 50%: raw and fields are documented inline, but project is undocumented in both schema and description, and uuid has no format notes. The description mentions uuid as the lookup key, which adds little beyond the name, and it does not compensate for the undocumented project parameter.

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?

A specific verb, "Get", plus resource, "branch-protection rule", and the lookup key, "by uuid", tell an agent exactly what it retrieves and distinguish it from the list/create/edit/delete siblings. It does not explicitly name an alternative, which keeps it shy 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.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The only hint of usage is "by uuid", which implies the caller must already have a rule's identifier, probably from a list call. No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative (for example, list) is stated.

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

Deploy Server