forgejo-mcp

Request reviewers

request_pull_request_reviewers

Assigns reviewers to a pull request in Forgejo or Gitea by providing owner, repo, PR number, and reviewer usernames.

Instructions

Request reviews from users on 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>",
      "reviewers": "<reviewers>"
    },
    "name": "request_pull_request_reviewers"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`repo`	Yes	Repository name
`index`	Yes	Pull request number
`owner`	Yes	Repository owner (user or organization)
`reviewers`	Yes

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 this is a non-read-only, open-world, non-destructive operation, so the bar is lower. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic action—such as whether it replaces existing reviewers, adds to them, triggers notifications, or requires specific 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's scope.

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 write tool with four required parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits prerequisites (e.g., required permissions), the effect on existing reviewers, and any notification behavior, leaving the agent under-informed.

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 75%, with three of four parameters documented in the schema. The description's phrase 'from users' loosely maps to the 'reviewers' array but does not specify the expected format (e.g., usernames vs. team slugs), leaving a gap for the one undocumented required 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?

The description states a clear verb ('Request reviews') and resource ('users on a pull request'), making the action unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like create_pull_request_review, but the core purpose is still easily understood.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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

Deploy Server