Laravel Forge MCP Server (Extended)

install_git_repository

Install a Git repository on a Laravel Forge site by specifying server, site, provider, repository, and branch. Optionally run composer install.

Instructions

Install a Git repository on a site

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": {
      "serverId": "<serverId>",
      "siteId": "<siteId>",
      "provider": "<provider>",
      "repository": "<repository>",
      "branch": "<branch>"
    },
    "name": "install_git_repository"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`branch`	Yes	Branch to deploy
`siteId`	Yes	The ID of the site
`composer`	No	Run composer install
`provider`	Yes	Git provider
`serverId`	Yes	The ID of the server
`repository`	Yes	Repository (username/repo)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Jul 6, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions required, or whether the installation is destructive. The agent is left without essential behavioral context.

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, direct sentence with no unnecessary words. The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core action.

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?

Despite having a clear purpose, the description lacks critical context: no explanation of the 'install' process, prerequisites, return value, or interaction with other tools. Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the agent is underinformed.

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?

All 6 parameters are described in the schema (100% coverage), so the schema already provides clear meaning. The description adds no additional insight into parameter semantics beyond what the schema offers.

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 a specific verb 'Install' and clearly identifies the resource 'a Git repository' and context 'on a site'. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'remove_git_repository' and 'deploy_site'.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools such as 'deploy_site' or 'remove_git_repository' exist but are not mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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