Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
forgejo-process-mcp

forgejo-process-mcp

by Helpfulpaw
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

ci_runs

Lists recent Forgejo Actions CI runs for a repository, returning run status and details so you can track build outcomes and pipeline history without leaving your workflow.

Instructions

List recent Forgejo Actions runs for a repo

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": {
      "repo": "<repo>"
    },
    "name": "ci_runs"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repoYes
limitNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only says "list recent." It does not state that this is a read-only operation, how "recent" or ordering is determined, pagination behavior, or what happens when there are no runs or the repo is inaccessible.

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?

The single sentence is front-loaded and free of filler, with no redundant restatement of the name. Brevity is partly a liability here since so little substantive information accompanies it.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter descriptions, this tool depends entirely on the description for behavioral context. For a two-parameter listing tool with an undocumented limit and repo format, the definition is too thin for an agent to call it confidently.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the definition must compensate for both parameters. It does not explain the required repo format (owner/name vs bare name) or the meaning and default of limit (schema default 10, description says only "recent").

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?

States a specific verb and resource: "List recent Forgejo Actions runs for a repo." An agent can tell this returns CI run records rather than repository or branch data. It stops short of distinguishing itself from the sibling cicd_events, which plausibly returns related CI data.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus the sibling cicd_events or cicd_start, and no prerequisites such as authentication or the repo needing Actions enabled. The agent must infer the choice from names alone.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools