GitFlic MCP Server

gitflic_branch_protection_list

Read-only

List branch protection rules for a GitFlic project to audit which branches are protected and how. Use it to review or verify protection settings before making repository changes.

Instructions

List branch protection rules.

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": "gitflic_branch_protection_list"
  }
}

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.
`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

C2.4/5.0

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 nothing beyond that: it does not mention pagination, result ordering, response slimming/compression behavior, or the unusual idempotentHint=false on a list operation.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero waste, but it is under-specified rather than concise — there is no second sentence that earns its place by adding scope or filtering behavior.

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?

The tool has a required project parameter and three-parameter schema with no output schema and no annotation coverage of scoping. Given that complexity, the description should explain the project scoping and the slim-vs-raw response mode, which it does not.

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 67%, and the uncovered parameter is the required `project`, which has no schema description. The description never states that listing is project-scoped or what form the project identifier takes, so it fails to compensate for the gap; the `raw`/`fields` parameters are already documented in the 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?

States a verb + resource ("List branch protection rules") that an agent can map to the branch-protection family and distinguish from the create/edit/delete/get siblings by name alone. However, it is essentially a readable restatement of the tool name with no scope information, such as whether the list is scoped to a project or a branch.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives (e.g., when to call gitflic_branch_protection_get instead for a single rule). The agent must infer usage entirely 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