gitee-mcp

gitee_webhook

List or clear inbound Gitee webhook events such as push, star, fork, and pull request, enabling automated reactions to repository activity.

Instructions

Inspect inbound Gitee webhook events (push, star, fork, pull_request...).

[RATIONALE] Gitee pushes events to POST /api/webhooks/gitee when a repo webhook is configured; this tool surfaces the captured feed so agents can react to CI pushes, stars and forks.

Return Format

{"success": bool, "operation": str, "events": [...], "count": int}

Examples

gitee_webhook(operation="list", limit=10) gitee_webhook(operation="clear")

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": {
      "operation": "<operation>"
    },
    "name": "gitee_webhook"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Max events (1-50).
`operation`	Yes	Operation: 'list' recent inbound webhook events, 'clear' wipes them.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 18, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions two operations ('list' and 'clear') but does not disclose that 'clear' is destructive (wipes events), nor does it mention authorization, rate limits, or side effects. This is a significant omission for a mutation 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?

The description is concise but complete: a one-line summary, a rationale section, return format, and examples. Every sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded with the purpose. No redundant text.

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 tool's simplicity (2 parameters, enum operation, and output schema provided), the description covers the main functionality and return format. However, it lacks details on error handling, edge cases, or behavioral nuances like the destructive nature of 'clear', which would make it fully complete.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes parameters. The description adds value by providing examples (`gitee_webhook(operation="list", limit=10)` and `gitee_webhook(operation="clear")`) and specifying the return format (`{"success": bool, "operation": str, "events": [...], "count": int}`), which goes beyond what the schema provides.

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 clearly states it inspects inbound Gitee webhook events, listing specific event types (push, star, fork, pull_request). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like gitee_explore or gitee_repo which serve different purposes.

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?

The rationale explains the tool surfaces captured webhook feed for reacting to CI pushes, stars, and forks, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or direct users to alternatives, which is a minor gap.

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

Deploy Server