forgejo-mcp

Update issue

update_issue

Change an issue's title, body, state, assignees, or milestone in a Forgejo or Gitea repository to keep issue details accurate and current.

Instructions

Edit an issue's title, body, state, assignees or milestone.

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": "update_issue"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`body`	No
`repo`	Yes	Repository name
`index`	Yes	Issue number
`owner`	Yes	Repository owner (user or organization)
`state`	No
`title`	No
`assignees`	No
`milestone`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 17, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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). The description adds nothing beyond that: it doesn't state whether this is a partial update (unset fields preserved), what permissions are required, or the error behavior if the issue is missing.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the primary verb and target front-loaded. Zero filler; every word carries meaning.

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?

No output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description only needs to cover behavior and params. It lists the mutable fields but omits partial-update semantics and auth needs, leaving a mutation tool minimally but not fully described.

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 only 38%, so the description partially compensates by naming five updatable fields (title, body, state, assignees, milestone). However, owner/repo/index and the semantics of a milestone integer are left unexplained, so the description helps but does not close the coverage gap.

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 (Edit) and resource (issue) and enumerates the mutable fields, so the agent knows exactly what it changes. It is clearly distinct from create_issue and get_issue, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.

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, prerequisites, or alternative routing is provided. The description never says when to prefer update_issue over related tools like add_issue_labels or update_pull_request, leaving usage entirely to inference.

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

Deploy Server