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

forgejo-process-mcp

by Helpfulpaw
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

git_push

Pushes the current or specified branch to a remote repository, enabling agents to update Forgejo branches and continue development without manual Git commands.

Instructions

Push the current (or given) branch to a remote

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": {
      "dir": "<dir>"
    },
    "name": "git_push"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dirYes
branchNo
remoteNoorigin

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 behavioral burden. It implies a write/network operation but does not disclose safety concerns such as overwriting remote history, force-push behavior, permission requirements, or failure modes.

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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Its brevity is appropriate for a concise summary, though it leaves important details unstated.

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?

This is a mutation/network tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage. The description is far too thin to cover operational risks, parameter meanings, or expected results.

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 description must compensate for all three parameters. It partially clarifies branch ('current or given') and remote, but says nothing about the required 'dir' parameter, leaving key semantics undocumented.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: push a branch to a remote. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not distinguish itself from sibling git_* operations.

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 tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites such as authentication, clean working tree, or upstream configuration. The parameter default for remote='origin' is not explained in the description.

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