search_repositoriesSearch Forgejo/Gitea repositories by keyword, with optional topic filtering and pagination, to locate projects, code hosts, or organization repos.
Search repositories on the Forgejo/Gitea instance by keyword.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number (default 1) | |
| limit | No | Results per page (default 30, max 100) | |
| query | Yes | ||
| topic | No | Match topics only |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does 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 adds only 'by keyword', saying nothing about which repository fields are matched, matching semantics, or pagination behavior. With annotations carrying the safety burden, this is a modest contribution.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though arguably too terse to earn a top score given the routing and behavioral gaps it leaves open.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 4-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description is minimal but functional: the agent knows what it searches and that it is a safe read. It omits the required query's semantics and any sense of result format, but pagination fields are schema-documented.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 75%; page, limit and topic are documented in the schema. The required 'query' parameter has no schema description, and the description's 'by keyword' only loosely implies its meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does most of the work.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear verb+resource ('Search repositories') plus the target platform (Forgejo/Gitea) and the matching mode (by keyword). This distinguishes it from list_repositories, though the description never names that sibling to make the distinction explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Only implies that you call it with a keyword; there is no when-to-use vs when-not, and no pointer to alternatives like list_repositories (browse all) or get_repository (known name). The routing decision is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.