Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MCP Hub

MCP Hub

by airano-ir
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Gitea: Create tag

gitea_create_tag

Create a Git tag in a Gitea repository at a chosen commit to mark releases, versions, or checkpoints, with an optional tag message and target revision.

Instructions

[UNIFIED] Create a new tag in a Gitea repository at specific commit.

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": {
      "site": "<site>",
      "owner": "<owner>",
      "repo": "<repo>",
      "tag_name": "<tag_name>"
    },
    "name": "gitea_create_tag"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repoYes
siteYes
ownerYes
targetNo
messageNo
tag_nameYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv3.14.0
  2. Removedv3.13.1
  3. First observedv3.4.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered. Beyond that, the description adds only the vague phrase 'at specific commit' and says nothing about duplicate-tag handling, what target defaults to when omitted, or auth requirements.

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?

A single short sentence that front-loads the action and resource. The bracketed '[UNIFIED]' token is the only wasted element, and it costs little.

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?

For a six-parameter mutation tool with zero schema descriptions and no output schema, this is thin. An agent cannot tell what 'message' does, whether 'target' accepts a SHA or branch name, or what a successful response looks like.

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% across six parameters, so the description must carry the burden and largely fails. It hints at 'commit' (the target parameter) but never explains tag_name, message (annotation message vs tag message?), site, owner, or repo.

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 tag) scoped to a Gitea repository at a specific commit, and the 'Gitea' qualifier separates it from n8n_create_tag and wordpress_create_tag. The '[UNIFIED]' prefix is unexplained noise that adds nothing to purpose.

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 create a tag versus using gitea_create_branch, gitea_create_release, or gitea_delete_tag. No prerequisites such as required token scopes, nor any note about behavior when the tag name already exists.

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