Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
forgejo-mcp

forgejo-mcp

by jerdog
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

List labels

list_labels
Read-only

Retrieve all labels in a repository, including their IDs, so you can assign the correct labels to issues.

Instructions

List labels of a repository (returns the IDs needed to label issues).

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_labels"
  }
}

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, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful signal about what the call yields (label IDs), but says nothing about pagination, return shape, or permissions beyond what annotations provide.

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 tight sentence with the resource named first and no filler. Appropriately sized for a simple read tool, though the parenthetical is slightly cryptic rather than maximally informative.

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?

With no output schema, the description does well to note that IDs are returned, but it stops short of describing the overall return structure or pagination behavior. For a read-only list tool with full schema coverage this is adequate but leaves gaps an agent might need.

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 all documented in the schema itself. The description contributes nothing param-specific, so the 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 ('List labels of a repository'), and the parenthetical clarifies the purpose of the result. It doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from sibling write tools like create_label or add_issue_labels, but the read-oriented intent is unambiguous.

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 parenthetical '(returns the IDs needed to label issues)' implies the follow-up use case and faintly points toward add_issue_labels, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternative. Usage is left to inference.

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