Skip to main content
Glama

Gitea: List pull requests

gitea_list_pull_requests
Read-only

List pull requests in a Gitea repository and filter them by state, labels, milestone, or sort order to review open or closed changes.

Instructions

[UNIFIED] List pull requests in a Gitea repository with filters.

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_list_pull_requests"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNo
repoYes
siteYes
sortNocreated
limitNo
ownerYes
stateNoopen
labelsNo
milestoneNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

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

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not mention default state filtering (schema default is 'open'), default sort by created, pagination defaults (page=1, limit=30), or result ordering behavior a caller would want to know.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no padding, but its brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than efficiency. The '[UNIFIED]' tag consumes space without adding meaning.

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 9-parameter listing tool with no parameter documentation, no output schema, and only a readOnly hint for annotations, the description should explain filter semantics, defaults, and pagination. It does none of these, leaving the caller to infer behavior from raw schema defaults.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Nine parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description supplies only the words 'with filters'. The meaning of state, sort, labels, milestone, page, and limit — and their defaults — is entirely undocumented anywhere.

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 pull requests in a Gitea repository. However, it offers no differentiation from siblings such as gitea_list_issues, gitea_list_pr_reviews, or gitea_get_pull_request, and the '[UNIFIED]' prefix adds no information.

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?

'with filters' hints at narrowing results but gives no guidance on when to reach for this tool versus gitea_get_pull_request or the PR-comment/commit/review listers. No prerequisites about site/owner/repo resolution are mentioned.

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