Retrieve git tags from a repository's refs/tags/* using owner pubkey and repo ID, providing an accurate list of versioned releases without including Zapstore or website releases.
List git tags from the bridge (refs/tags/*), not Zapstore software releases and not the website Releases tab
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (default 20) | |
| relays | No | ||
| repoId | Yes | Repository ID | |
| ownerPubkey | Yes | Repository owner pubkey |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavioral context by scoping the operation to bridge refs/tags/* and clarifying what it is not, but it does not disclose auth requirements, side effects, pagination behavior, or return value details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the disambiguation clause earning its place. No filler or redundant repetition of schema information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool, the description states the exact source and scope and makes the return concept clear: git tags. With no output schema, it could be more explicit about the response shape, but the core calling intent is well covered.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 75%, so the schema already handles most parameter meaning. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond framing the result set as git tags from the bridge.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'List git tags from the bridge (refs/tags/*)' and explicitly distinguishes this from Zapstore software releases and the website Releases tab. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like listForgeReleases or createRelease.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives explicit negative guidance: it is for git tags, not Zapstore software releases or the website Releases tab. This prevents obvious misuse, though it does not name a specific alternative tool to use instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.