forgejo-mcp

get_workflow_run

Read-only

Retrieve a single Forgejo Actions workflow run by its ID to inspect status, logs, and conclusions. Ideal for debugging or monitoring CI/CD pipelines.

Instructions

Get a single Actions workflow run by ID.

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>",
      "run_id": "<run_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_workflow_run"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`repo`	Yes
`owner`	Yes
`run_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

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which already establishes the safety profile, and the description is consistent with that. No additional behavioral traits such as error behavior, rate limits, or auth requirements are disclosed, but none are necessary for this simple getter.

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?

A single declarative sentence with no filler words. It is front-loaded with the verb and noun, and every word contributes to the meaning.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given that the tool is a straightforward read operation, annotations cover the read-only nature, and an output schema exists, the description is nearly complete. The only minor gap is the absence of a pointer to list_workflow_runs as the way to discover run IDs.

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

Parameters3/5

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. It clarifies that run_id is the workflow run identifier, while owner and repo are left to their conventional and self-explanatory names. This is adequate but not detailed.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Get', names the resource 'Actions workflow run', and scopes to a single run by ID. This clearly distinguishes it from list_workflow_runs and dispatch_workflow even without naming them.

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 'by ID' implies the tool is used when a specific run_id is known, and it contrasts with listing runs. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over list_workflow_runs or any exclusions.

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