gittr-mcp

closeIssue

Closes a Git issue on gittr.space by publishing the closed status to Nostr, using issue ID, repository ID, and private key.

Instructions

Convenience: publish status 1632 (closed) for an issue

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": {
      "issueId": "<issueId>",
      "ownerPubkey": "<ownerPubkey>",
      "repoId": "<repoId>",
      "privkey": "<privkey>"
    },
    "name": "closeIssue"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`relays`	No
`repoId`	Yes
`content`	No
`issueId`	Yes
`privkey`	Yes
`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 must disclose safety and side effects. It indicates a write operation ('publish status') but doesn't mention whether it overwrites existing status, permission requirements, relay propagation, or preconditions like the issue being open. The '1632' status is unexplained.

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 concise sentence, but it is under-specified. 'Convenience' adds a little context, but the sentence doesn't effectively front-load actionable information. It is short without being informative.

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

Completeness1/5

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

As a mutation tool with 6 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description fails to cover required context like side effects, security requirements (privkey), or relationship to sibling tools. It provides only a minimal hint, making it inadequate for reliable agent use.

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 offers no parameter explanations. Required params (issueId, ownerPubkey, repoId, privkey) and optional ones (relays, content) are left entirely to the schema, which the agent must already know. The description adds no meaning beyond implying 'issue'.

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 states a specific action: publishing status 1632 (closed) for an issue, which effectively means closing an issue. It is clear and distinguishes from siblings like reopenIssue by the 'closed' status, though the numeric code '1632' is somewhat cryptic.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The word 'Convenience' hints it is a wrapper, but it doesn't explain when to prefer closeIssue over lower-level publishStatusForRoot or how it contrasts with reopenIssue.

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

Deploy Server