forgejo-mcp

Fork repository

fork_repository

Create a fork of any repository in your authenticated account or a chosen organization to develop changes without affecting the original.

Instructions

Fork a repository to the authenticated user or a given organization.

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>"
    },
    "name": "fork_repository"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	Name for the fork
`repo`	Yes	Repository name
`owner`	Yes	Repository owner (user or organization)
`organization`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 17, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world). The description usefully adds that the fork is created under the authenticated user or an organization, but omits conflict behavior (e.g., existing fork), permission requirements, and rate limits.

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 waste; the destination clause is attached efficiently. It is slightly terse given the tool's write nature, but nothing is padded.

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 mutation tool with annotations but no output schema and 75% parameter coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It leaves out what the return looks like and how conflicts or permissions are handled, which an agent would want for a fork operation.

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 coverage is 75% and the bare 'organization' parameter has no schema description; the description partially compensates by tying it to the fork destination. It adds little beyond the schema for name/repo/owner, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (fork) and resource (repository), plus the destination scope (authenticated user or given organization). This distinguishes it from create_repository, though it does not name that sibling explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The mention of 'authenticated user or a given organization' implies the two usage modes and which parameter drives the destination, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus create_repository or prerequisites such as required permissions.

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

Deploy Server