forgejo-mcp

search_repos

Read-only

Find Forgejo repositories matching a keyword, with optional page and limit to control result size.

Instructions

Search for repositories matching q.

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": {
      "q": "<q>"
    },
    "name": "search_repos"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`q`	Yes
`page`	No
`limit`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 5, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already mark the operation as read-only (readOnlyHint=true), so the description needs to add behavioral context beyond that. It does not: no mention of query scope, GitHub search syntax, result matching semantics, rate limits, or pagination behavior. The text essentially restates the tool name.

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. It is concise and to the point, but it omits useful details that would not significantly hurt conciseness.

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?

Given there are three parameters, an output schema, and a read-only annotation, the description should still explain search scope, q semantics, and pagination choices to be complete. It currently leaves the agent to infer these from the parameter names and the output schema, which is insufficient for a search endpoint.

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 clarify the parameters to compensate. It only restates that q is the search term and says nothing about page or limit formatting, defaults beyond the schema, or query syntax. This is not enough compensation for an undocumented schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('repositories'), making the core function clear. It identifies q as the search term, which helps distinguish it from list_repos and search_users, though it doesn't explicitly call out sibling differences.

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 description implies the tool is for finding repositories by a query, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer search_repos over list_repos, search_users, or other list/search siblings. There are no exclusions or alternative routing hints.

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