Defame1297
8680adf4c0
gitea-releases was the weakest skill in the plugin: no allowed-tools, no owner/repo resolution, and a checkbox list where a dispatch table belongs, so an agent reaching it had to guess both its permissions and its inputs. The id-vs-tag_name trap — deleting by tag name where the API wants the numeric id — is restored as an explicit Gotcha because it destroys the wrong release silently. Elsewhere the `exclusive` flag was documented on the wrong side of the read/write split, and label data from one instance was presented as though it were universal, which invites an agent to assume a taxonomy that does not exist on the target repo. rename_branch was missing from the branch surface. Reference prose and fences are cleaned up in passing.
4.5 KiB
topic, source_keys
| topic | source_keys | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| branches |
|
Branch operations
Call signatures below were verified live against the deployed gitea-mcp server via ToolSearch,
not copied from research docs — this is deliberate: research docs are generated from source code at
a point in time and can drift from the server actually deployed. Last verified against gitea-mcp
v1.7.0, as reported by get_gitea_mcp_server_version. Re-verify against the live schema if the
deployed version differs or these tools behave differently than documented here.
list_branches
Parameters:
owner(string, required)repo(string, required)page(number, optional, default:1)per_page(number, optional, default:30)
Call:
list_branches owner: <owner> repo: <repo>
Response: one object per branch: name, protected (bool), commit_sha (present when the
underlying commit data is available).
Paginate if you need the full list (see Gotchas in SKILL.md) — iterate page until the returned
count is less than per_page.
create_branch
Parameters:
owner(string, required)repo(string, required)branch(string, required) — new branch nameold_branch(string, optional) — source branch; if omitted, defaults to the repo's default branch server-side (not necessarily your current local checkout)
Call:
create_branch owner: <owner> repo: <repo> branch: <new-name> old_branch: <source-branch>
Default dispatch: if the user gives a base ("branch off of X", "from X"), pass it as old_branch.
If they don't specify a base and you're mid-task on a local branch, pass your current branch
(git branch --show-current) as old_branch so the new branch forks from where you're actually
working, rather than silently falling back to the repo default. If neither applies (e.g. a fresh
top-level request with no working branch context), omit old_branch and let it default server-side.
A branch name collision returns 409 Conflict.
rename_branch
Parameters:
owner(string, required)repo(string, required)branch(string, required) — the branch's current namenew_name(string, required) — the name to move it to
Call:
rename_branch owner: <owner> repo: <repo> branch: <current-name> new_name: <new-name>
A rename moves the ref server-side; it is not a delete-plus-create, and no commit history is
rewritten. What it does to things pointing at the old name — open pull requests using it as head or
base, a branch protection rule matching it, CI config, and tracking branches on every other clone —
is not confirmed by this skill's sources: the deployed tool describes itself only as "Rename an
existing branch in a repository". Treat a rename of a branch with open PRs or a protection rule as a
change needing verification afterward (list_branches, plus gitea-prs for the PR side), and
confirm with the user first, exactly as for delete_branch below. A collision with an existing
branch name is expected to return 409 Conflict by analogy with create_branch, not separately
confirmed.
delete_branch
Parameters:
owner(string, required)repo(string, required)branch(string, required)
Call:
delete_branch owner: <owner> repo: <repo> branch: <name>
Before calling this, see the delete_branch Gotcha in SKILL.md. If the target branch's name isn't
obviously a scratch/feature branch, call list_branches first and check protected on the
matching entry — name-matching main/master alone isn't authoritative, since a repo can protect
a differently-named default branch. Confirm explicitly with the user before deleting anything
protected, every time, regardless of how the request is phrased.
Token scope
list_branches, create_branch and delete_branch all require write:repository. Gitea
gates reads behind write scope for repo-scoped operations, so list_branches needs the same scope
as the write operations, not write:issue alone. An earlier version of this doc claimed
write:issue alone was sufficient for list_branches, based on empirical testing under a token
that held both write:issue and write:repository simultaneously — that test didn't isolate the
variable, so it couldn't actually establish write:issue alone as sufficient.
rename_branch is a write on the same repo-scoped surface and is inferred to need write:repository
too — inferred by analogy, not separately confirmed.