gittr-mcp

forkRepo

Duplicate any existing repository into a new one, setting a custom name and description. Choose public or private visibility to control who can access the copy.

Instructions

Fork an existing repository

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": {
      "sourceRepoId": "<sourceRepoId>",
      "newRepoName": "<newRepoName>"
    },
    "name": "forkRepo"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`relays`	No
`privkey`	No	Private key (auto-loaded)
`publicRead`	No	false = private fork. Default true.
`graspServer`	No
`newRepoName`	Yes	Name for forked repo
`sourceRepoId`	Yes	Repo to fork
`sourceOwnerPubkey`	No	Owner of source repo
`newRepoDescription`	No	Description for forked repo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.3Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Fork an existing repository' does not mention side effects (e.g., creating a new repository), authentication requirements, or effects on the source repository. This is a significant gap for a mutation operation.

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 concise sentence with no filler, fully front-loaded with the essential action. It earns every word.

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 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the one-sentence description is insufficient. It does not explain the forking workflow, return values, or consequences, leaving the agent without crucial context for a complex operation.

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 75% (6 of 8 parameters have descriptions), so the schema already documents most parameter semantics. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but the coverage is high enough that the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Fork an existing repository' uses a specific verb (fork) and resource (repository), clearly stating the action. It distinguishes from siblings like createRepo and mirrorRepo, though it doesn't elaborate on the nuances of forking versus those alternatives.

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 provided on when to use forkRepo over alternatives such as mirrorRepo or createRepo. The description simply states the action without context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage purely from the tool name.

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

Deploy Server