Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
gittr-mcp

gittr-mcp

by arbadacarbaYK
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

listBountiesForIssue

Retrieve bounty events linked to a specific issue. Provide the issue ID to list associated bounties, with optional limits and relay selections.

Instructions

List kind 9806 bounty events linked to an issue id

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": {
      "issueId": "<issueId>"
    },
    "name": "listBountiesForIssue"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
relaysNo
issueIdYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.3

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral weight. It only says 'List' and mentions the event kind, but does not disclose return format, pagination, relay behavior, or any side effects. It is a read operation but lacks sufficient detail.

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?

One concise sentence with no filler. Efficiently communicates the core action and target.

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 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what kind 9806 events are, how relays are used, or what the response looks like.

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 has zero description coverage, and the description only explains the 'issue id' linkage (issueId parameter). The optional 'limit' and 'relays' parameters are not explained, leaving significant ambiguity.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'List' with resource 'kind 9806 bounty events' and scope 'linked to an issue id'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling listBounties which likely lists all bounties.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Provides clear context that this tool is for finding bounty events associated with a specific issue ID. However, it does not explicitly mention when to avoid it or mention alternatives such as listBounties.

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