Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MCP Hub

MCP Hub

by airano-ir
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Gitea: List org repos

gitea_list_org_repos
Read-only

List all repositories in a Gitea organization with page and limit controls, enabling organized review of projects through MCP Hub.

Instructions

[UNIFIED] List all repositories of an organization.

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>",
      "org": "<org>"
    },
    "name": "gitea_list_org_repos"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
orgYes
pageNo
siteYes
limitNo

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?

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe read. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not mention pagination behavior despite page/limit parameters, does not say whether results include private repos or are filtered by caller permissions, and does not describe ordering.

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, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler. Its brevity is efficient, though the '[UNIFIED]' tag is unearned noise.

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 four-parameter tool with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, one sentence is not enough: pagination, result shape, and site/org format are all unaddressed. Only the readOnly annotation keeps this from being completely opaque.

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 bears the burden, yet it only weakly maps to 'org'. The site, page, and limit parameters are never mentioned, leaving an agent to guess their semantics from bare property names and defaults.

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: 'List all repositories of an organization.' The 'of an organization' scope implicitly distinguishes it from gitea_list_user_repos and gitea_list_repositories, though it never names those siblings. The '[UNIFIED]' prefix adds no informational value.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., auth or org membership), and no mention of alternatives such as gitea_list_user_repos for personal repos. The agent must infer selection from the name alone.

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