forgejo-mcp

Get repository

get_repository

Read-only

Get details of a Forgejo or Gitea repository by specifying its owner and repository name.

Instructions

Get details of a repository.

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": "get_repository"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`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

C2.5/5.0

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 fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on what is returned, no visibility/permission caveats, no behavior when the repo does not exist. With the lower bar set by annotations, this is still a missed opportunity.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

A single short sentence with no filler and the verb front-loaded, so it is efficient. But it is essentially a restatement of the tool name/title, so brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a read-only getter with full schema coverage this could be adequate, but with no output schema the agent has no idea what the returned repository object contains, and the crowded sibling set demands at least a routing hint versus list_repositories/search_repositories. The definition leaves both gaps open.

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% for both parameters (repo name, owner user/org), so the schema carries the parameter semantics. The description adds no syntax, format, or resolution detail beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description states a specific verb and resource (get / repository), which is clearer than a bare tautology. However, in a sibling set that includes search_repositories, list_repositories, and get_file_contents, it offers no scoping or differentiation, so an agent cannot tell why it would pick this over list_repositories without opening the schemas.

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 mention of prerequisites (e.g., a token or visibility scope), and no named alternatives. The agent must infer from the name alone that this retrieves a single repo by owner+name rather than enumerating repos.

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

Deploy Server