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

forgejo-process-mcp

by Helpfulpaw
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

pr_merge

Merge a specified pull request by repository and index using merge, rebase, or squash style to integrate changes into the target branch.

Instructions

Merge a pull request

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>",
      "index": "<index>"
    },
    "name": "pr_merge"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repoYes
indexYes
styleNomerge

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.1/5.0
Behavior1/5

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, yet it discloses nothing beyond the bare verb. It does not mention that merging is a mutating, potentially irreversible action, what permissions are required, whether it waits for CI, or what side effects occur.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The single sentence is front-loaded and contains no filler, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise for a mutating tool with three parameters.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given the tool's mutation semantics, three parameters, enum option, and absence of annotations or an output schema, the description is far too thin to prepare an agent to call it correctly. Nothing about merge behavior, failure modes, or return effects is covered.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning for any of the three parameters. It does not explain repo, index, or the merge/rebase/squash style options, leaving the agent entirely dependent on parameter names.

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: 'Merge a pull request.' It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from siblings such as pr_open or pr_status beyond the obvious resource, and it gives no hint about scope or preconditions.

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, no prerequisite conditions such as the PR being open or checks passing, and no explanation of when a merge should be avoided.

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