forgejo-mcp

get_pull_review

Read-only

Fetch a particular pull request review using owner, repository, PR index, and review ID to inspect feedback.

Instructions

Get a specific review on 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": {
      "owner": "<owner>",
      "repo": "<repo>",
      "index": "<index>",
      "review_id": "<review_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_pull_review"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`repo`	Yes
`index`	Yes
`owner`	Yes
`review_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 5, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the 'Get' wording is consistent with that, so there is no contradiction. The description adds little behavioral context beyond the read-only nature, but the output schema and annotation reduce the need for extensive behavior disclosure.

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 a single, direct sentence with no filler. The core action and resource are front-loaded, making it easy to scan.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple read-only getter with an output schema and readOnlyHint annotation, the description is minimally adequate. However, it does not clarify how the parameters map to the pull request and review, nor does it reference list_pull_reviews as a prerequisite source of review IDs.

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%, and the description does not explain any of the four parameters. In particular, 'index' is ambiguous (likely the pull request number) and 'review_id' is not clarified, leaving the agent to rely on parameter names and inference.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource: 'a specific review on a pull request.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_pull_reviews, which returns all reviews, and get_pull_request, which returns the pull request itself.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The phrase 'specific review' implies this tool is for retrieving a single review by ID, but there is no explicit guidance about when to use it versus list_pull_reviews or create_pull_review. No alternative tools or exclusion conditions are mentioned.

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