Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MCP Hub

MCP Hub

by airano-ir
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Gitea: Delete repository

gitea_delete_repository
Destructive

Permanently deletes a Gitea repository for a given site and owner. Use it to remove unwanted or obsolete repositories when the deletion cannot be undone.

Instructions

[UNIFIED] Delete a Gitea repository permanently. This action cannot be undone!

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>"
    },
    "name": "gitea_delete_repository"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repoYes
siteYes
ownerYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

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

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. 'This action cannot be undone!' merely restates destructiveHint rather than adding new context such as required permissions, token scopes, or what happens to issues, branches, and webhooks attached to the repository. Nothing contradicts the annotations, but the description adds little beyond them.

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?

Two short sentences with the destructive warning front-loaded; the only wasted token is the '[UNIFIED]' tag.

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 destructive, irreversible mutation with all three parameters undocumented and no output schema, the description should say more about authorization needs and cascade effects. It does not.

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?

The parameter names repo, sensor-equivalent owner, and site are largely self-explanatory, which keeps this functional, but schema description coverage is 0% and the description supplies no format or meaning for any of the three.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Delete a Gitea repository permanently'), which is unambiguous and distinguishable from gitea_get_repository or gitea_create_repository by the verb alone. The '[UNIFIED]' prefix is noise but does not obscure the 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?

It gives no guidance on when to choose this over siblings such as gitea_update_repository (e.g., to rename vs. remove) or what prerequisites must be met. There is no statement of who may call it or what state the repository must be in.

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