gittr-mcp

bridgeGetFileContent

Fetch raw file content from a decentralized Git repository via the Nostr bridge. Provide owner pubkey, repo, and path to retrieve the file directly.

Instructions

GET /api/nostr/repo/file-content — raw file from bridge

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": {
      "ownerPubkey": "<ownerPubkey>",
      "repo": "<repo>",
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "bridgeGetFileContent"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes
`repo`	Yes
`branch`	No
`bridgeUrl`	No
`ownerPubkey`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.3Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It only states the endpoint and function, omitting any mention of read-only semantics, response format, permissions, or side effects. Since GET implies a read, but this isn't explicitly stated, the agent is left without critical behavioral context.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a single sentence and easy to read, with no wasted words. However, it's so brief that it lacks necessary detail, making it more under-specified than appropriately concise. It earns a middle score for being clear but not overflowing.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the complexity of 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is far from complete. It doesn't explain parameter roles, return values, or usage scenarios, so an agent cannot reliably invoke the tool correctly without external knowledge.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description doesn't mention any parameters. All 5 parameters (path, repo, branch, bridgeUrl, ownerPubkey) are undocumented, leaving the agent without guidance on required combinations, defaults, or formats. The description completely fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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?

The description clearly identifies the action (GET), the resource (file-content), and the context (from bridge), making it distinguishable from other file-related tools like getFile. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools or explain what 'bridge' means, so it's not a full 5.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like getFile or bridgeListFiles. The description is purely declarative and offers no contextual cues or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server