Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
gittr-mcp

gittr-mcp

by arbadacarbaYK
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

exploreRepos

Search decentralized Git repositories by category or topic, using filters like bitcoin, lightning, nostr, ai, and more.

Instructions

Explore repositories by category/topic

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "exploreRepos"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax results (default 20)
relaysNo
categoryNoCategory: bitcoin, lightning, nostr, defi, ai, tools, cli, mobile

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.3

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 convey behavioral traits. It only states the action without disclosing read-only nature, authentication requirements, pagination, or any side effects. The word 'explore' implies a read operation but this is not explicit.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is a single short sentence with no fluff, but it's under-specified. It omits essential guidance about parameters, usage, and behavior, making it more incomplete than 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 the tool has 3 parameters, no annotations, and a rich set of sibling tools (searchRepos, listRepos, getTrendingRepos), the description is far from complete. It lacks information about return format, filtering semantics, and alternatives, leaving the agent to guess when and how to invoke it.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The input schema describes limit and category with descriptions, covering 67% of the parameters. The description's phrase 'by category/topic' aligns with the category parameter but adds no insight into limit or relays. The relays parameter remains undocumented in both schema and description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states 'Explore repositories by category/topic,' giving a clear resource (repositories) and a filter dimension (category/topic). However, the verb 'explore' is vague and could overlap with sibling tools like searchRepos or listRepos, and it doesn't specify the operation's output or scope.

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 context is provided. The description doesn't indicate when to use exploreRepos versus searchRepos, listRepos, or getTrendingRepos, nor any prerequisites or limitations.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools