List branches in a Tolgee project. Returns up to 100 results per page. Only available for projects with branching enabled (enterprise feature).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Optional: page number (0-based, default 0) | |
| search | No | Optional: search filter for branch names | |
| projectId | No | ID of the project (required for PAT, auto-resolved for PAK) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals pagination behavior ('Returns up to 100 results per page') and a critical availability constraint (enterprise feature). While it does not detail response format or authorization, these are less critical for a read-only 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loads the main purpose, and includes only essential information. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with no output schema, the description provides the core purpose, pagination limit, and an important enterprise constraint. It does not describe return fields, but given the simplicity and lack of output schema, this is acceptable. It is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's behavior and limitations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no direct parameter guidance beyond mentioning pagination, which aligns with the page parameter. It does not elaborate on search or projectId, but the schema already describes these adequately. No additional value is provided beyond the structured schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'List branches in a Tolgee project.' This is a specific verb+resource construction that distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_keys or list_languages.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a clear context for usage and an explicit exclusion: 'Only available for projects with branching enabled (enterprise feature).' This tells the agent when not to use the tool, though it does not mention alternatives. That qualifies as a clear usage guideline with a constraint.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools target distinct entities and actions, but a few pairs like create_keys/set_translation and list_keys/search_keys have overlapping functionality. The descriptions clearly differentiate their use cases, so ambiguity is limited.
All tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (create_, delete_, get_, list_, set_, etc.), making the API predictable. The only slight deviation is machine_translate, but it still reads as a single action verb.
With 22 tools, the server covers many aspects of translation management, but the count is slightly above the ideal range. Each tool has a clear purpose, though some could potentially be consolidated without loss of functionality.
The core key and translation lifecycle is well covered, but there are notable gaps: languages only support create and list (no update/delete), tags can be added but not removed, and projects lack get/update/delete operations. These omissions may require workarounds.
