forgejo-mcp

List pull request reviews

list_pull_request_reviews

Read-only

Fetch reviews for a specific pull request in a repository, with pagination, to inspect approvals, comments, and requested changes.

Instructions

List reviews of a pull request.

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": "list_pull_request_reviews"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`page`	No	Page number (default 1)
`repo`	Yes	Repository name
`index`	Yes	Pull request number
`limit`	No	Results per page (default 30, max 100)
`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, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no note on pagination behavior, result ordering, or what happens for a PR with no reviews. With annotations present, the bar is lower, but this adds zero behavioral 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 efficient sentence with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. It is arguably too terse, but it wastes nothing.

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 read-only list tool with full schema coverage and clear annotations, the minimum viable information is present. It is still thin: it does not clarify the reviews-vs-review-comments distinction or pagination expectations, which an agent would benefit from given the dense sibling set.

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% – page, limit, repo, index, and owner are all documented in the schema. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 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 clear verb+resource ('List reviews of a pull request'), so an agent immediately knows the operation. However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings like list_pull_request_review_comments or create_pull_request_review, leaving ambiguity between 'reviews' and 'review comments'.

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 prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The agent gets no help deciding between this tool, list_pull_request_review_comments, and the PR-level tools such as get_pull_request.

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

Deploy Server