Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

GitRanks Contribute

by com.gitranks
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

My contributions

my_contributions
Read-only

Lists this contributor's work: claims at work (with their lease and any change the contributor asked for), patches waiting on their review, pull requests with their state and follow-ups, and totals. Use it to resume work or to see what needs attention. It renews the 24-hour lease of each running claim it lists (not the 48-hour submission deadline) and lists a claim past its hold as stopped. followUpRecommended marks a pull request with feedback or failing checks waiting.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "my_contributions"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
firstNoThe most rows per group, 1 to 50; 20 by default
stateNoworking: claims at work; review: patches waiting on the contributor; pr: pull requests; all by default

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

No schema history has been recorded yet.

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

The description states that listing renews the 24-hour lease of every running claim and marks expired claims as stopped. Those are server-side state mutations, which directly conflict with the supplied readOnlyHint=true declaration that the tool does not modify its environment. The disclosure itself is valuable and specific (including the 48-hour submission-deadline distinction), but it contradicts the annotation rather than complementing it.

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?

Four sentences, purpose front-loaded, then usage, then the non-obvious side effect, then a return-field explanation. Every sentence carries information an agent could not get from the schema or annotations, with no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned groups and explains the followUpRecommended flag, which is otherwise undocumented. Remaining gaps are minor (result ordering, whether totals are per-group), but for a two-parameter read tool the coverage is close to sufficient.

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 100%, and the description's group wording largely restates what the schema already says about the state enum (working/review/pr) and the default 20 rows for first. No additional syntax, formatting, or edge-case meaning is contributed, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Lists this contributor's work" is a specific verb plus resource, and the enumeration of groups (claims at work with lease and requested change, patches awaiting review, pull requests with state and follow-ups, totals) makes the payload unambiguous. It stops short of naming a sibling such as find_issues to draw the contrast explicitly.

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?

"Use it to resume work or to see what needs attention" gives a concrete situational trigger an agent can match against a user's intent. It offers no explicit exclusions or pointers to alternative tools, so it stays 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.

All GitRanks Contribute toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources