Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MCP Hub

MCP Hub

by airano-ir
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Gitea: Reopen pull request

gitea_reopen_pull_request
Destructive

Reopen a closed Gitea pull request when further changes are needed by specifying the site, owner, repo, and pull request number.

Instructions

[UNIFIED] Reopen a closed pull request.

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>",
      "pr_number": "<pr_number>"
    },
    "name": "gitea_reopen_pull_request"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repoYes
siteYes
ownerYes
pr_numberYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

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

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the state condition ("closed" PR) but nothing about required permissions, side effects on linked branches/reviews, or failure modes; given annotations carry the main burden, this is adequate but thin.

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 with the action front-loaded and no filler. The "[UNIFIED]" prefix is noise that adds no meaning, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Four required parameters with zero schema documentation, no output schema, and no return-value description; the definition supplies none of the missing context. For a state-changing operation on a repository resource, the definition is too sparse to be safely callable without trial and error.

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% and all four parameters (site, owner, repo, pr_number) are undocumented in both schema and description. Only the word "pull request" hints that pr_number identifies the target; nothing explains site selection or identifier formats, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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+resource ("Reopen a ... pull request") and the constraint that it applies to closed PRs, which distinguishes it from the reopen-issue and create/update siblings. It does not explicitly name the inverse tool (gitea_close_pull_request), but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 use this versus alternatives, no stated precondition that the PR must already be closed (and not merged), and no mention of what happens if the PR is open or the branch was deleted. The agent must infer the correct invocation context from the tool 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