Skip to main content
Glama

List issues

forgejo_list_issues
Read-onlyIdempotent

List repository issues with filters for state, labels, and full-text search. Get open, closed, or all issues, optionally filtered by labels or query.

Instructions

Lists a repository's issues. Pull requests are excluded (use forgejo_list_pull_requests).

Parameters:

  • owner, repo (string, optional when defaults are configured)

  • state ('open' | 'closed' | 'all', default 'open')

  • labels (string[], optional): label names, all of them required

  • query (string, optional): full-text search across title and body

  • page, limit, response_format

Returns: { total, count, page, limit, has_more, issues: [{ number, title, state, author, labels, comments, created_at, updated_at, html_url }] }

Examples:

  • "open issues on the CRM" -> state='open'

  • "closed bugs" -> state='closed', labels=['bug']

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNoPage to fetch, 1 = first.
repoNoRepository name. Defaults to FORGEJO_DEFAULT_REPO.
limitNoItems per page (max 50).
ownerNoRepository owner (user or organisation). Defaults to FORGEJO_DEFAULT_OWNER.
queryNoFull-text search across title and body.
stateNoState filter.open
labelsNoRequired label names.
response_formatNo'markdown' for a readable rendering, 'json' for the full data.markdown

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds value beyond annotations by describing the exact return shape, pagination fields, and the fact that pull requests are excluded. It does not contradict annotations and adds meaningful behavioral context.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is well-structured: a front-loaded purpose sentence, a compact parameter summary, a return-shape example, and illustrative use cases. Every line earns its place with no redundant filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has 8 parameters and no output schema, so the description appropriately documents all parameters, return fields, pagination behavior, and response formats. The presence of examples closes remaining ambiguity about how to interpret user requests. Nothing needed for tool selection or invocation is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage of parameters is 100%, but the description adds semantics beyond the schema: it clarifies that all listed labels are required, interprets default owner/repo configuration, and provides concrete examples mapping user intent to state and labels. This goes beyond simply repeating schema descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description explicitly states that the tool lists a repository's issues and immediately excludes pull requests, clearly distinguishing it from forgejo_list_pull_requests. The verb-resource pairing is specific and unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description tells the agent to use forgejo_list_pull_requests for pull requests, provides example natural-language mappings, and explains filter semantics like default state and required labels. This is explicit guidance for tool selection and invocation.

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

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Birdiz/forgejo-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server