gittr-mcp

createIssue

Create a new issue in a Nostr-based Git repository. Requires signing with a private key; specify owner public key, repo ID, subject, and relays, plus optional content and labels.

Instructions

Create an issue - REQUIRES signing

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>",
      "repoId": "<repoId>",
      "subject": "<subject>",
      "privkey": "<privkey>",
      "relays": "<relays>"
    },
    "name": "createIssue"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`labels`	No
`relays`	Yes
`repoId`	Yes
`content`	No
`privkey`	Yes
`subject`	Yes
`ownerPubkey`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.3Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that signing is required and implies a write operation, but it does not explain the signing mechanism, side effects, or permission requirements beyond that.

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?

The description is a single sentence that front-loads the action and flags a critical requirement. There is no filler or redundant wording; every word earns its place.

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 seven parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, one sentence is insufficient. The description omits return value expectations, signing details, and how this tool relates to other issue/PR operations in the same domain.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no parameter-level detail. 'REQUIRES signing' hints at the privkey parameter, but otherwise required fields like ownerPubkey, repoId, and relays are left entirely to their self-evident names.

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 uses a specific verb and direct object ('Create an issue'), which clearly identifies the action and resource. It is distinct from related sibling tools like listIssues, closeIssue, and reopenIssue.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description includes a prerequisite ('REQUIRES signing') but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as createPR or listIssues. Usage context is mostly implied by the tool name and sibling set.

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

Deploy Server