Skip to main content
Glama
brechanbech

forgejo-mcp-rs

by brechanbech
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Remote

List workflow runs

list_workflow_runs
Read-only

List a repository's CI workflow runs newest-first, filterable by commit SHA, branch, status, event, or workflow file, to check whether a specific commit or push passed.

Instructions

List a repository's Actions (CI) workflow runs (owner/repo), on Forgejo or Gitea. Newest first, 30 to a page unless page/limit say otherwise; total is the full count, so page on for more. Filter by head_sha (best for 'did this commit pass?' — the full 40-character SHA; an abbreviated one is refused, since both forges match it exactly and would silently find nothing), ref, status, event, or workflow_id (a file name like ci.yml). The two forges model a run almost entirely differently — Gitea copied GitHub's vocabulary, Forgejo kept its own — so this output is a translation, not either forge's raw shape: run_number, title, workflow, ref, commit_sha and created/started/stopped each come from a differently-named key on each forge. Read the outcome from status (success/failure/running/…); on Gitea that is its conclusion, since Gitea's own status reports only the phase (queued/in_progress/completed). Do not infer either forge's wire format from these field names. A 404 means either that Actions is disabled on the repo, or — on Gitea only, and only when workflow_id is set — that no such workflow file exists; Forgejo returns an empty list for an unknown workflow_id instead.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
refNoFilter by branch or tag ref, e.g. `refs/heads/main`.
pageNo1-based page number. Defaults to 1, the most recent runs.
repoYesRepository name.
eventNoFilter by triggering event, e.g. `push`, `pull_request`, `workflow_dispatch`.
limitNoResults per page. Defaults to 30; Codeberg caps it at 50.
ownerYesRepository owner.
statusNoFilter by run status, e.g. `success`, `failure`, `running`, `waiting`.
head_shaNoFilter by head commit SHA — the most reliable way to find the run for a given push. Must be the full 40-character SHA (64 for SHA-256): the match is exact, so an abbreviated one would find nothing, and is refused instead.
workflow_idNoFilter by workflow file name, e.g. `ci.yml`.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.22.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the readOnly/openWorld annotations: default 30-per-page and total count, the cross-forge translation of field names, and the nuanced status-vs-conclusion distinction. It also documents 404 semantics (Actions disabled vs missing workflow file, with Forgejo returning an empty list instead).

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?

Information-dense and front-loaded with the core purpose and pagination before diving into forge-translation caveats. It is somewhat long and the head_sha caveat repeats the schema description, but almost every sentence carries actionable content.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With no output schema, the description fully covers what fields mean (run_number, title, status, etc.) and cautions against inferring forge wire formats. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret the result correctly.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is already 100%, so the schema does most of the work, but the description adds real meaning: it explains the status/conclusion mapping and reinforces the exact-match head_sha constraint. It largely restates rather than extends some schema text, keeping it just below a 5.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('List a repository's Actions (CI) workflow runs') with the scope (owner/repo) and forge context (Forgejo/Gitea). It is clearly distinguished from get_workflow_run and list_workflow_jobs by being the listing entry point.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives strong operational guidance (pagination via page/limit and `total`, filter dimensions, head_sha as best for 'did this commit pass?'). It does not explicitly name when to prefer a sibling like get_workflow_run or list_workflow_jobs, so it stops short of a 5.

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