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

forgejo-process-mcp

by Helpfulpaw
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

repo_create

Create a Forgejo repository from a required name with optional privacy and description settings to initialize a new project for agent-driven git workflows.

Instructions

Create a Forgejo repository

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "repo_create"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
privateNo
descriptionNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses almost nothing: no note on whether this requires authentication or elevated permissions, no indication of what happens if the name already exists, and no statement of defaults for visibility. Only the implicit fact that this is a write/mutation operation is conveyed.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Five words, fully front-loaded with zero waste, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness. Nothing is redundant, yet too much is left unsaid for a mutation tool.

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?

A repository-creation mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation needs the description to explain side effects and permissions. The definition supplies none of that, leaving the agent unable to predict results or failure modes.

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% for all three parameters, so the description needed to compensate and adds nothing about name format, whether private defaults to false, or how description is used. The parameter names are largely self-explanatory and the description establishes they belong to a Forgejo repository, which is the only marginal value.

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 ("Create a Forgejo repository"), so the agent knows exactly what action lands on what object. It does not differentiate from siblings such as repo_list, though the verb already separates it from read-only listing tools.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no preconditions, and no mention of alternatives or follow-up tools. The agent must infer entirely from the name that this is the provisioning step before git_clone/git_push workflows.

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