Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
woodpecker-ci-mcp

woodpecker-ci-mcp

by ni-c
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Add registry credentials

create_registry

Store container registry credentials to let pipelines pull private images. Provide address, username, and password; the address is the unique identifier.

Instructions

Stores credentials for a container registry so pipelines can pull private images from it. The address is the identifier — there is no separate name — so "docker.io" and "index.docker.io" are two different entries.

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": {
      "scope": "<scope>",
      "address": "<address>",
      "username": "<username>",
      "password": "<password>"
    },
    "name": "create_registry"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
scopeYesWhich level to act on. "repository" needs repo_id, "organization" needs org_id, and "global" is instance-wide and needs neither (admin only). A pipeline sees the repository level first, then the organization, then global.
org_idNoRequired when scope is "organization".
addressYesRegistry address, which is also its identifier — for example "docker.io".
repo_idNoRequired when scope is "repository".
passwordYesRegistry password or token. Write-only — Woodpecker strips it from every response, so it cannot be read back.
usernameYesRegistry username.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
truncatedNoPresent only when the answer was shortened to fit the budget.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already mark it as a non-read-only, non-idempotent mutation; the description adds that it stores credentials and that address identity is significant. However, it doesn't disclose what happens if the same address is used again or how this interacts with update_registry, leaving a behavioral gap for a write operation.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first establishes purpose and the second adds a critical parameter nuance. It is front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the comprehensive schema and an output schema, the description is largely sufficient for invoking the tool. The remaining gap is the lack of explicit guidance on create-versus-update behavior, which matters because update_registry exists as a sibling.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds value by explaining the address is the identifier with no separate name and that similar-looking addresses are treated as distinct entries, which is not fully explicit in the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb and resource ('Stores credentials for a container registry') and connects it to a concrete goal ('so pipelines can pull private images from it'). It also clarifies the unique addressing model, which helps distinguish it from registry-related siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It provides a clear use context: when credentials need to be stored for a registry so pipelines can access private images. It doesn't explicitly list alternatives or exclusions such as 'use update_registry to modify an existing address,' so it falls short of a 5.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools