gittr-mcp

createPRComment

Post a comment on a pull request and optionally reply to a parent comment to create threaded discussions, using Nostr for decentralized collaboration.

Instructions

Publish a NIP-22 comment (kind 1111) on a pull request. Optional replyTo for threaded replies.

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": {
      "prId": "<prId>",
      "content": "<content>",
      "privkey": "<privkey>"
    },
    "name": "createPRComment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`prId`	Yes	Root PR event id (kind 1618)
`relays`	No
`repoId`	No
`content`	Yes
`privkey`	Yes	nsec or hex
`replyTo`	No	Parent comment event id for a reply (omit to reply to the PR)
`ownerPubkey`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.0.6Sep 8, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool publishes a NIP-22 comment, which implies a broadcast/write operation, but it does not mention signing requirements, relay usage, irreversibility, or any side effects beyond publishing.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise, though its brevity contributes to the lack of behavioral and contextual detail.

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?

For a tool with 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is incomplete. It does not explain return behavior, relay or key handling, or the roles of several parameters, leaving an agent under-equipped to invoke it correctly.

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 only 43%, and the description only adds meaning around replyTo. Parameters like relays, repoId, content, and ownerPubkey remain undocumented in both the schema and description, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 a specific action—'Publish a NIP-22 comment (kind 1111) on a pull request'—and mentions the optional replyTo behavior. This distinguishes it from related tools like createIssueComment and listPRComments.

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 gives useful context: use it for pull request comments and optionally for threaded replies. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over alternatives such as createIssueComment, nor does it state any exclusions or conditions.

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

Deploy Server