forgejo-mcp

Remove label from issue

remove_issue_label

Remove a specific label by ID from an issue or pull request in Forgejo or Gitea repositories. Use it to correct or update issue categorization.

Instructions

Remove one label (by ID) from an issue or 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>",
      "label_id": "<label_id>"
    },
    "name": "remove_issue_label"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`repo`	Yes	Repository name
`index`	Yes	Issue number
`owner`	Yes	Repository owner (user or organization)
`label_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 17, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower. The description usefully adds that removal is single-label and applies to both issues and pull requests, but says nothing about what happens if the label is not attached, or about required permissions.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, containing no filler. Every clause adds scope information (one label, by ID, issue or PR).

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?

Adequate for a simple mutation: annotations carry the safety profile and there is no output schema to explain. However, for a tool whose only non-obvious parameter is label_id, it omits how to obtain that ID and the behavior on a label that is not 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 75%, with only label_id undocumented in the schema; the description adds 'by ID' for it, but the parameter name label_id already conveys that, so the added value is thin. It does not say where the ID comes from (e.g., list_labels), which is the real gap for this parameter.

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 (remove) and resource (label on an issue/pull request), plus the scoping detail that exactly one label is removed and it is identified by ID. This separates it from add_issue_labels and list_labels without needing to open a schema, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no pointer to the alternatives (add_issue_labels to attach, list_labels to discover label IDs). The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the inverse of add_issue_labels.

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

Deploy Server