gittr-mcp

bridgeListFiles

List files in a specified Git branch hosted on Nostr's gittr platform. Provide owner pubkey and repo name to retrieve the file listing for that branch.

Instructions

GET /api/nostr/repo/files — list files for branch

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>"
    },
    "name": "bridgeListFiles"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.3Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It implicitly indicates a read-only GET request, but does not mention edge cases, auth requirements, rate limits, or response format, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single clean sentence with no wasted words. However, it is quite terse and under-specified, which slightly reduces its effectiveness despite being concise.

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 five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It only states the core action without explaining required context, the role of bridgeUrl, or how results are returned.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, and the description only hints at the 'branch' parameter. Other parameters such as ownerPubkey, repo, bridgeUrl, and includeSizes are left unexplained, adding minimal value over the bare 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 clearly states the action and resource: 'GET /api/nostr/repo/files — list files for branch'. It specifies the HTTP method and endpoint, distinguishing it from sibling tools like getFile, bridgeListRefs, and bridgeListCommits.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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

Deploy Server