Skip to main content
Glama

Related Servers

Alternatives to forgejo-mcp-rs

Related Servers

  • A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    C
    maintenance
    Enables self-hosted, read-only remote interaction with GitHub repositories, allowing listing repositories, searching code, and inspecting commits, pull requests, issues, and diffs via authenticated MCP clients.
    200 npm
    MIT
  • A
    license
    A
    quality
    B
    maintenance
    Enables any MCP client to read GitHub repositories, branches, tags, pull requests, files and Actions workflow runs, and optionally create branches and pull requests, comment, assign, approve, trigger workflows, merge and delete. Read-only by default, with separate opt-in switches for write and destructive operations, working against github.com or GitHub Enterprise Server.
    11
    MIT
  • A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    B
    maintenance
    A remote multi-tenant MCP server that lets AI agents read repositories and create work branches with multi-file commits on Forgejo or Gitea instances, while leaving review and merging to a person and blocking destructive or administrative actions.
    Apache 2.0
  • A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    C
    maintenance
    This MCP server enables users to interact with Forgejo instances through a finite, audited catalog of 33 tools covering users, repositories, issues, pull requests, and more, with explicit write controls and verified result envelopes.
    155 npm
    MIT
  • A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    B
    maintenance
    Gives any MCP client read-only tools for private GitHub repositories, with OAuth-based authentication and an allowlist of GitHub logins.
    200 npm
    MIT

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Scored across 59 tools

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource and action, and overlapping areas are explicitly disambiguated by the descriptions (e.g. get_combined_status vs get_commit_statuses, get_file_contents vs get_repo_tree, list_issues vs list_pull_requests). The cross-references between related tools make misselection unlikely despite the large surface.

Naming Consistency4/5

The set predominantly follows a verb_noun snake_case convention (list_repos, get_issue, create_pull_request, delete_branch), which is predictable. Minor deviations like version, whoami, write_status, and enable_write_mode/disable_write_mode keep it from being perfect but do not impede understanding.

Tool Count2/5

With 59 tools, the server is far above the practical 3-15 tool range and presents a heavy surface for an agent to navigate. The breadth of Forgejo's API partially justifies the scope, but the count is still excessive for reliable tool selection.

Completeness4/5

Core lifecycle coverage is strong across repositories, branches, files, commits, issues, pull requests, releases, assets, workflows, notifications, organizations, keys, and mirrors. Minor gaps remain, such as dedicated label/milestone CRUD, tag listing, webhook/team management, and comment editing/deletion, but no major workflow is blocked.

Maintenance

ActivityActive
ResponsivenessNo issues