forgejo-mcp

Get issue

get_issue

Read-only

Fetch an issue by number from a Forgejo or Gitea repository. Provide owner, repo, and issue index to view its details.

Instructions

Get an issue by number.

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>"
    },
    "name": "get_issue"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`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=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: no note on behavior for a nonexistent issue number, no indication of what is returned, no rate-limit or auth context.

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 short sentence with the key discriminator ('by number') front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though arguably efficient to the point of under-specification.

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 simple three-parameter lookup tool whose schema is fully documented and whose annotations cover safety, the description is minimally sufficient to invoke correctly. It omits any routing guidance against the many sibling issue tools, which is the one thing an agent actually needs here.

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% (owner, repo, index are each documented), so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description's only contribution is the phrase 'by number', which loosely maps to 'index' but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Get an issue') plus the lookup key ('by number'), which is enough to distinguish it from create_issue/update_issue. It does not, however, distinguish itself from list_issues or search_issues, which retrieve the same resource class.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. An agent must infer on its own that this is for fetching a single issue when the number is known, versus list_issues or search_issues for browsing.

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

Deploy Server