Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
gittr-mcp

gittr-mcp

by arbadacarbaYK
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

listStars

Retrieve Git repositories starred by a user on gittr.space. Uses Nostr reaction events to determine the latest star per repository.

Instructions

List repos a user starred (kind 7 with #k 30617 and #e pointing at 30617 events; latest reaction per repo wins)

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "listStars"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pubkeyNoUser pubkey (auto-detected from credentials)
relaysNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.3

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the internal Nostr event mechanism (kind 7 with #k 30617) and the 'latest reaction per repo wins' rule, adding meaningful behavioral context. It does not mention side effects, but 'list' implies a read-only operation.

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?

The description is a single dense sentence, front-loaded with the main action and followed by a compact parenthetical with technical details. There is no fluff or repetition.

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?

The description gives the core purpose and some technical context, but lacks an output format description and does not explain the relays parameter. With no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate for an expert but leaves gaps for a general AI agent.

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 only 50% (relays is undocumented). The description adds no parameter information at all, leaving the relays parameter unexplained. It fails to compensate for the schema gap, even though the schema's pubkey description mentions auto-detection.

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 clearly states it lists starred repos, using the specific verb 'List' and the resource 'repos a user starred'. It also adds technical detail about event kind and dedup logic, which distinguishes it from siblings like listWatchedRepos.

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 for listing starred repos but does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state exclusions. It lacks guidance on when to choose this over listWatchedRepos or other list tools, leaving usage inferred from the tool name and phrasing.

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