Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
gittr-mcp

gittr-mcp

by arbadacarbaYK
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

fetchForgeReleases

Fetch release binaries (APK, AppImage, DMG, tar.gz, MSI/EXE, IPA) from GitHub, Codeberg, or GitLab. Omit tag to get latest non-draft release; enable hash to compute sha256 for announcements.

Instructions

Fetch a public forge Release (GitHub/Codeberg/GitLab) with announceable binaries (APK, AppImage, DMG, linux tar.gz, MSI/EXE, IPA). Omit tag for latest. Set hash:true to compute sha256 (slow; required before announce).

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": {
      "sourceUrl": "<sourceUrl>"
    },
    "name": "fetchForgeReleases"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tagNoSpecific Release tag (omit = latest non-draft, same as Code sidebar Nostr Apps)
hashNoIf true, stream announceable files and return sha256 (can take up to ~120s)
sourceUrlYesForge repository HTTPS URL (e.g. https://github.com/org/app)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.0.6
    • changedInput schema / properties / hash / description
      Previous value: -"If true, stream APK and return sha256 (can take up to ~120s)"New value: +"If true, stream announceable files and return sha256 (can take up to ~120s)"
    • addedInput schema / properties / tag
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Specific Release tag (omit = latest non-draft, same as Code sidebar Nostr Apps)",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observedv1.0.3

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds meaningful traits: the operation is read-only ('Fetch'), works on public resources, supports specific hosts, can take ~120s when hashing, and is a required precursor to announce. It does not mention rate limits or error behavior, but this is solid coverage for a fetch tool.

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?

Two dense, front-loaded sentences communicate the operation, scope, key optional behavior, and a critical workflow prerequisite. There is no filler or redundant restating of the name.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description covers the main call pattern and the hash behavior, but there is no output schema and no mention of what a successful response contains (e.g., release metadata, asset URLs, hashes map). It does not explain behavior when no announceable binaries are found, leaving a moderate gap for an agent deciding whether the call succeeded.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some usage nuance beyond the schema ('required before announce'), but most parameter meaning already lives in the schema, so no strong compensation is needed.

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 precise verb ('Fetch') and resource ('public forge Release'), names the supported forges (GitHub/Codeberg/GitLab), and scopes the result to announceable binaries. This clearly distinguishes the tool from list-oriented siblings like listForgeReleases and listReleases.

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 implies usage context: omit tag for latest, set hash before announce. However, it never explicitly says when to choose this tool over sibling tools such as listForgeReleases or createRelease, so the agent must infer the workflow.

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