Gitea MCP Server

list_issues

Fetch issues from a specific Gitea repository, filtered by open, closed, or all states, to review and manage repository issue lists.

Instructions

Fetches issues for a specific repository (state can be 'open', 'closed', or 'all').

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>"
    },
    "name": "list_issues"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`repo`	Yes
`owner`	Yes
`state`	No	open

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 28, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only implies a read operation via 'fetches' and says nothing about pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether results are filtered by the caller's permissions.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single tight sentence with the resource and filter front-loaded and no filler. The parenthetical state values are the one piece of genuinely load-bearing detail.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but for a read tool with zero annotations and zero schema coverage the description leaves auth, pagination, ordering, and the owner parameter unaddressed. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It usefully enumerates the allowed state values ('open', 'closed', 'all') that the schema does not document as an enum, and ties repo to a 'specific repository', but adds nothing about the owner parameter or format.

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 (fetches) and resource (issues) scoped to a specific repository, and enumerates the state values. It is clear on its own, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like list_repositories or list_workflow_runs.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_issue or list_repositories. The state filter implies a listing use case but there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or routing hints.

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

Deploy Server