gittr-mcp

listIssues

List issues the way the website Issues tab does. Nostr issues, plus GitHub or Codeberg/Gitea issues when the repo source says so. A forge issue and a Nostr issue stay separate rows. GitLab sources stay Nostr-only, same as the website.

Instructions

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": {
      "ownerPubkey": "<ownerPubkey>",
      "repoId": "<repoId>"
    },
    "name": "listIssues"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`labels`	No	Filter by labels
`relays`	No
`repoId`	Yes	Repository identifier
`ownerPubkey`	Yes	Repository owner pubkey

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.3Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses merge semantics (forge and Nostr issues stay separate rows; GitLab sources stay Nostr-only), which is real behavioral context. However it omits auth needs, pagination, and result ordering that an agent would want for a list operation.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds a distinct fact about merge behavior. No filler.

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?

With no output schema or annotations, the description explains the merge semantics well but is silent on pagination, auth requirements, and return shape. Adequate but with clear gaps for a listing tool.

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 coverage is 75% and the description adds nothing about the four parameters (labels, relays, repoId, ownerPubkey), leaving the relays parameter undocumented. With schema doing most of the work, baseline 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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (issues), and the description makes clear this aggregates Nostr plus forge issues. It distinguishes itself from write-side siblings like createIssue and from listIssueComments, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 (view the issue list as the website does) but gives no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance, e.g. it never points to getIssueById or listIssueComments for narrower needs. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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

Deploy Server