forgejo-mcp

Comment on issue or pull request

add_issue_comment

Post a comment on a Forgejo or Gitea issue or pull request by specifying repository owner, repo, issue number, and comment body.

Instructions

Add a comment to an issue or 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": {
      "owner": "<owner>",
      "repo": "<repo>",
      "index": "<index>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "add_issue_comment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`body`	Yes
`repo`	Yes	Repository name
`index`	Yes	Issue number
`owner`	Yes	Repository owner (user or organization)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 17, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no auth/permission requirements, no rate-limit notes, and no mention of what posting entails. It merely restates the write action already implied by the name.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than optimal conciseness.

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 low-complexity 4-param write tool with no output schema and annotations covering safety, the minimum is met. Still missing is any note on the undocumented body field or return/behavioral expectations, leaving a small but real gap.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 75% (owner, repo, and index are documented; body is not). The description offers no parameter detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies, slightly undercut by the undocumented body field.

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?

The description states a specific verb (add) and resource (comment on an issue or pull request), which is enough to distinguish it from list_issue_comments and create_issue. However, it does not differentiate from the nearby create_pull_request_review, which also produces reviewer commentary, so sibling discrimination is incomplete.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named. An agent cannot tell from the text whether this is the right tool versus create_pull_request_review or a review-comment path.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server