gittr-mcp

listForgeReleases

Fetch all forge releases and assets from a repository URL without NIP-82 MIME restrictions. Returns release data equivalent to the gittr Releases tab.

Instructions

List all forge Releases + assets for a source URL (same as gittr Releases tab). No NIP-82 MIME gate. Distinct from listReleases (git tags).

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": "listForgeReleases"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`sourceUrl`	Yes	Forge repository HTTPS URL

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.0.6Sep 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation (list), the scope (all forge releases + assets), and a notable non-behavior ('No NIP-82 MIME gate'), plus the gittr Releases tab analogy. However, it does not mention auth requirements, output structure, or potential error/failure modes, which keeps it at a minimally sufficient level.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: the core action, an important technical qualifier about the NIP-82 MIME gate, and a sibling distinction. The primary action is front-loaded and there is no redundant filler.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a one-parameter read-only listing tool, the description covers the target resource, the scope, the key alternative, and a relevant behavioral qualifier. There is no output schema, so a bit more detail about the exact shape of returned release/asset data could strengthen it, but the description is otherwise sufficient for correct invocation.

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 already provides 100% coverage with 'Forge repository HTTPS URL' for sourceUrl. The description adds no significant new parameter-level meaning beyond using the phrase 'source URL,' so the baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List all forge Releases + assets for a source URL.' It also explicitly distinguishes itself from listReleases, which covers git tags, so an agent can tell which tool fits the need.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It names the direct alternative, listReleases, and gives the selecting condition: listReleases is for git tags while this tool is for forge releases and assets. The note about 'No NIP-82 MIME gate' further clarifies when this tool is appropriate.

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

Deploy Server