forgejo-mcp

Search issues and pull requests

search_issues

Read-only

Find issues and pull requests across all repositories visible to your token, with owner, state, type, and page filters.

Instructions

Search issues/PRs across all repositories visible to the token.

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": {
      "q": "<q>"
    },
    "name": "search_issues"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`q`	Yes
`page`	No	Page number (default 1)
`type`	No
`limit`	No	Results per page (default 30, max 100)
`owner`	No	Limit to repositories of this owner
`state`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 17, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the visibility scope constraint (token-visible repositories), but says nothing about pagination limits, rate-limit behavior, or the query syntax the search engine expects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is good, but it is under-specified rather than concise — the brevity comes at the cost of any query or filtering context an agent needs.

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?

With 6 parameters, only 50% schema description coverage, no output schema, and no annotation detail beyond safety hints, a one-line description leaves major gaps: query syntax, how type/state/owner filter results, and result shape are all unaddressed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 50%: page and limit are described in the schema, but q, type, owner, and state are not. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, and critically omits any hint that q follows a search-query syntax rather than a plain keyword, which is essential for this tool.

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 specific verb (search) plus resource (issues/PRs) and scope (across all repositories visible to the token), which is more informative than the title alone. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling list_issues, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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 versus list_issues (repo-scoped listing), get_issue (single fetch), or search_repositories. The scope phrase implies a cross-repo search, but no alternative or exclusion is named.

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

Deploy Server