forgejo-mcp

Get combined commit status

get_commit_status

Read-only

Retrieve combined and individual CI statuses for a repository branch, tag, or commit SHA to check whether builds and checks passed.

Instructions

Get the combined CI status (and individual statuses) for a ref/SHA.

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>",
      "ref": "<ref>"
    },
    "name": "get_commit_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ref`	Yes	Branch, tag or commit SHA
`repo`	Yes	Repository name
`owner`	Yes	Repository owner (user or organization)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 17, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds that both aggregate and per-status results come back, but says nothing about authentication needs, rate limits, or how a 'combined' state is derived.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the primary purpose leads and the secondary detail (individual statuses) trails parenthetically.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema, the description usefully flags that the response includes both combined and individual statuses, which is the main thing an agent needs to know. It stops short of noting possible state values (success/failure/pending) or the unauthenticated-vs-authenticated behavior implied by openWorldHint.

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 100% with all three parameters (owner/repo/ref) documented, so the baseline is 3. The phrase 'ref/SHA' adds only marginal color beyond the schema's 'Branch, tag or commit SHA' description.

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?

Specific verb + resource ('Get the combined CI status ... for a ref/SHA') with the scope of the return ('combined' plus 'individual statuses') made explicit. This cleanly separates it from content-oriented siblings like get_commit or list_commits.

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?

Usage is only implied by the purpose: an agent can infer to call this when it needs CI results for a ref, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement or named alternative (e.g., get_commit for commit metadata). No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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

Deploy Server