Defame1297
8680adf4c0
gitea-releases was the weakest skill in the plugin: no allowed-tools, no owner/repo resolution, and a checkbox list where a dispatch table belongs, so an agent reaching it had to guess both its permissions and its inputs. The id-vs-tag_name trap — deleting by tag name where the API wants the numeric id — is restored as an explicit Gotcha because it destroys the wrong release silently. Elsewhere the `exclusive` flag was documented on the wrong side of the read/write split, and label data from one instance was presented as though it were universal, which invites an agent to assume a taxonomy that does not exist on the target repo. rename_branch was missing from the branch surface. Reference prose and fences are cleaned up in passing.
109 lines
4.5 KiB
Markdown
109 lines
4.5 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
topic: branches
|
|
source_keys:
|
|
- gitea-mcp-repo
|
|
- gitea-mcp-slim-go
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# Branch operations
|
|
|
|
Call signatures below were verified live against the deployed `gitea-mcp` server via `ToolSearch`,
|
|
not copied from research docs — this is deliberate: research docs are generated from source code at
|
|
a point in time and can drift from the server actually deployed. **Last verified against gitea-mcp
|
|
v1.7.0**, as reported by `get_gitea_mcp_server_version`. Re-verify against the live schema if the
|
|
deployed version differs or these tools behave differently than documented here.
|
|
|
|
## `list_branches`
|
|
|
|
**Parameters:**
|
|
- `owner` (string, required)
|
|
- `repo` (string, required)
|
|
- `page` (number, optional, default: `1`)
|
|
- `per_page` (number, optional, default: `30`)
|
|
|
|
**Call:**
|
|
```text
|
|
list_branches owner: <owner> repo: <repo>
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
**Response:** one object per branch: `name`, `protected` (bool), `commit_sha` (present when the
|
|
underlying commit data is available).
|
|
|
|
Paginate if you need the full list (see Gotchas in SKILL.md) — iterate `page` until the returned
|
|
count is less than `per_page`.
|
|
|
|
## `create_branch`
|
|
|
|
**Parameters:**
|
|
- `owner` (string, required)
|
|
- `repo` (string, required)
|
|
- `branch` (string, required) — new branch name
|
|
- `old_branch` (string, optional) — source branch; if omitted, defaults to the repo's default
|
|
branch server-side (not necessarily your current local checkout)
|
|
|
|
**Call:**
|
|
```text
|
|
create_branch owner: <owner> repo: <repo> branch: <new-name> old_branch: <source-branch>
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Default dispatch: if the user gives a base ("branch off of X", "from X"), pass it as `old_branch`.
|
|
If they don't specify a base and you're mid-task on a local branch, pass your current branch
|
|
(`git branch --show-current`) as `old_branch` so the new branch forks from where you're actually
|
|
working, rather than silently falling back to the repo default. If neither applies (e.g. a fresh
|
|
top-level request with no working branch context), omit `old_branch` and let it default server-side.
|
|
|
|
A branch name collision returns `409 Conflict`.
|
|
|
|
## `rename_branch`
|
|
|
|
**Parameters:**
|
|
- `owner` (string, required)
|
|
- `repo` (string, required)
|
|
- `branch` (string, required) — the branch's current name
|
|
- `new_name` (string, required) — the name to move it to
|
|
|
|
**Call:**
|
|
```text
|
|
rename_branch owner: <owner> repo: <repo> branch: <current-name> new_name: <new-name>
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
A rename moves the ref server-side; it is not a delete-plus-create, and no commit history is
|
|
rewritten. What it does to things *pointing at* the old name — open pull requests using it as head or
|
|
base, a branch protection rule matching it, CI config, and tracking branches on every other clone —
|
|
is **not confirmed** by this skill's sources: the deployed tool describes itself only as "Rename an
|
|
existing branch in a repository". Treat a rename of a branch with open PRs or a protection rule as a
|
|
change needing verification afterward (`list_branches`, plus `gitea-prs` for the PR side), and
|
|
confirm with the user first, exactly as for `delete_branch` below. A collision with an existing
|
|
branch name is expected to return `409 Conflict` by analogy with `create_branch`, not separately
|
|
confirmed.
|
|
|
|
## `delete_branch`
|
|
|
|
**Parameters:**
|
|
- `owner` (string, required)
|
|
- `repo` (string, required)
|
|
- `branch` (string, required)
|
|
|
|
**Call:**
|
|
```text
|
|
delete_branch owner: <owner> repo: <repo> branch: <name>
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Before calling this, see the `delete_branch` Gotcha in SKILL.md. If the target branch's name isn't
|
|
obviously a scratch/feature branch, call `list_branches` first and check `protected` on the
|
|
matching entry — name-matching `main`/`master` alone isn't authoritative, since a repo can protect
|
|
a differently-named default branch. Confirm explicitly with the user before deleting anything
|
|
protected, every time, regardless of how the request is phrased.
|
|
|
|
## Token scope
|
|
|
|
`list_branches`, `create_branch` and `delete_branch` all require `write:repository`. Gitea
|
|
gates reads behind write scope for repo-scoped operations, so `list_branches` needs the same scope
|
|
as the write operations, not `write:issue` alone. An earlier version of this doc claimed
|
|
`write:issue` alone was sufficient for `list_branches`, based on empirical testing under a token
|
|
that held both `write:issue` and `write:repository` simultaneously — that test didn't isolate the
|
|
variable, so it couldn't actually establish `write:issue` alone as sufficient.
|
|
|
|
`rename_branch` is a write on the same repo-scoped surface and is inferred to need `write:repository`
|
|
too — inferred by analogy, not separately confirmed.
|