Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
gittr-mcp

gittr-mcp

by arbadacarbaYK
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

listPRs

List pull requests the way the website does. Nostr pull requests, plus GitHub or Codeberg/Gitea pull requests when the repo source says so. They stay separate rows.

Instructions

List pull requests the way the website does. Nostr pull requests, plus GitHub or Codeberg/Gitea pull requests when the repo source says so. They stay separate rows.

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": "listPRs"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
relaysNo
repoIdYesRepository identifier
ownerPubkeyYesRepository owner pubkey

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.3

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds genuinely useful context: results combine multiple sources (Nostr, GitHub, Codeberg/Gitea) based on repo source and remain separate rows. However, it omits read-only nature, auth requirements, and any pagination/limit behavior.

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?

Two short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded. 'The way the website does' is slightly vague filler but the following sentence immediately clarifies what that means.

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?

For a three-param list tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description explains result composition but leaves gaps on auth, scoping to relays, and return shape. Adequate but not complete.

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 description coverage is 67% (relays undocumented), and the description adds no meaning for any of the three parameters. repoId and ownerPubkey are documented only in the schema, and relays is not compensated for anywhere.

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 clear verb+resource: listing pull requests, and adds scope detail (Nostr PRs plus GitHub/Codeberg/Gitea PRs depending on repo source). It implicitly distinguishes from getPullRequestById and listPRComments by being the list operation, though it doesn't name siblings explicitly.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Nothing tells the agent when to pick listPRs over getPullRequestById, listPRComments, or getPullRequestById. 'The way the website does' is not usable selection guidance.

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