Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
forgejo-mcp

forgejo-mcp

by jerdog
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

List Actions runs

list_action_tasks
Read-only

List recent CI Action task runs for a Forgejo/Gitea repository by owner and repo, enabling workflow status and history review.

Instructions

List recent Actions (CI) task runs for 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": "list_action_tasks"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNoPage number (default 1)
repoYesRepository name
limitNoResults per page (default 30, max 100)
ownerYesRepository owner (user or organization)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description only adds vague scoping with 'recent' and does not disclose pagination behavior, sorting, or rate limits beyond what the annotations and schema imply.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It clearly states the core operation and scope without redundancy.

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?

For a simple read-only list tool with complete schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly sufficient. It could mention return format or pagination behavior since no output schema exists, but the essential selection information is present.

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%, so owner, repo, page, and limit are already fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter detail beyond what the schema provides, which matches the baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (List) and resource (Actions CI task runs) scoped to a repository. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like list_workflows.

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?

It provides some context by saying 'for a repository' and 'recent,' but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_workflows or get_commit_status. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools