Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MCP Hub

MCP Hub

by airano-ir
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Gitea: List releases

gitea_list_releases
Read-only

Lists releases for a Gitea repository with pagination controls, enabling users to browse published versions and release details.

Instructions

[UNIFIED] List releases of a Gitea repository (paginated).

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_releases"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNo
repoYes
siteYes
ownerYes
per_pageNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv3.14.0

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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 one useful trait beyond that: results are paginated. It omits other behavioral context an agent would want, such as ordering, whether drafts/prereleases appear, or what a page holds.

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 compact sentence with no waste, and purpose is front-loaded. The '[UNIFIED]' prefix is decorative noise that carries no meaning for an agent.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only list tool with no output schema, the definition is minimally adequate, but it leaves an agent guessing about the 'site' selector and what a release object contains. Slightly more context would make it callable with confidence.

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 carries the full burden, yet it only implies 'repo' and pagination (page/per_page). It says nothing about the 'site' parameter (which Gitea instance), the owner/repo split, or default/limit values for page size.

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 releases of a Gitea repository', which separates it from siblings like gitea_list_tags or gitea_list_branches by resource. It does not explicitly contrast with those siblings, but the resource name alone is distinctive enough.

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?

Provides no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternatives. It never clarifies the common confusion between releases and tags, nor mentions prerequisites such as needing the repository to exist or permissions.

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