gittr-mcp

bridgeRepoExists

Check repository existence on the Nostr bridge using owner public key and repo name. Returns a boolean status to confirm availability before performing actions.

Instructions

GET /api/nostr/repo/exists — check if repo exists on 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>"
    },
    "name": "bridgeRepoExists"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.3Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'check if repo exists' without disclosing the return format (e.g., boolean, HTTP status), error behavior, or whether it performs a network call to the bridge. No side effects or failure modes are mentioned.

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 concise sentence that directly states the purpose. It is not overly verbose, but it lacks necessary details; however, for conciseness alone it earns a decent score.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter explanations, the description is incomplete for safe invocation. An agent cannot predict the outcome or interpret a response. The tool complexity is low, but the description still fails to provide essential context beyond the purpose.

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?

The input schema has 3 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain what 'ownerPubkey', 'repo', or 'bridgeUrl' mean, nor how they are used in the existence check. The agent must guess their semantics.

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 states the exact HTTP endpoint ('GET /api/nostr/repo/exists') and the operation ('check if repo exists on bridge'), making it clear this is a boolean existence check distinct from sibling tools like getRepo or listRepos.

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, no prerequisites, and no mention of whether it should be called before other operations. The agent is left to infer usage context.

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

Deploy Server