forgejo-mcp

Merge pull request

merge_pull_request

Destructive

Merge a Forgejo or Gitea pull request using a chosen strategy, with optional commit details and branch cleanup.

Instructions

Merge a pull request using the chosen strategy.

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": "merge_pull_request"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`repo`	Yes	Repository name
`index`	Yes	Pull request number
`owner`	Yes	Repository owner (user or organization)
`title`	No	Merge commit title
`method`	No		merge
`message`	No	Merge commit message
`delete_branch_after_merge`	No

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=false, destructiveHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds essentially nothing beyond that: it does not say the merge is irreversible, whether it deletes branches, or what permissions are required.

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 front-loaded sentence with no padding, which is appropriately tight. It is efficient rather than wasteful, though "using the chosen strategy" is vague filler rather than information.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the description should cover reversibility, merge prerequisites, and branch-deletion behavior. None of these are present, leaving the agent without the context needed to invoke a destructive operation safely.

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 coverage is 71%, close to the threshold where the schema carries most of the burden, so baseline 3 is appropriate. The phrase "chosen strategy" loosely points at the undocumented enum method parameter but explains none of its values (squash, rebase, fast-forward-only, etc.).

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 ("Merge") and resource ("a pull request"), so the core action is unambiguous. However, it offers no differentiation from siblings like update_pull_request, and "using the chosen strategy" gestures at the method param without clarifying purpose further.

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 (e.g. required approvals or passing checks), and no mention of alternatives. An agent gets no help deciding whether merging is appropriate here versus updating or closing.

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

Deploy Server