Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
gittr-mcp

gittr-mcp

by arbadacarbaYK
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

loadCredentials

Authenticate to Nostr by reading credentials from .nostr-keys.json; useful for debugging credential issues.

Instructions

Load Nostr credentials from .nostr-keys.json (for debugging)

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": "loadCredentials"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.3

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the source file and purpose but does not mention what the tool returns, whether it outputs sensitive credentials, or any side effects. Loading credentials could be security-sensitive, and this is not addressed.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundancy or 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?

For a zero-parameter tool, the description is mostly complete, but it lacks any mention of the output or return value. Since there is no output schema, the description should have indicated what 'loading' results in (e.g., returning credentials, setting environment variables), making this a moderate gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage. Per the rubric, 0 params earns a baseline of 4 since there is nothing for the description to add about parameter semantics.

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 the specific action (Load), the resource (Nostr credentials), and the source (from .nostr-keys.json). The parenthetical '(for debugging)' adds context and helps distinguish this utility tool from the many repo/PR/bounty siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives clear context by noting 'for debugging', implying this tool is intended for debugging purposes. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but given the unique nature of this tool among siblings, the usage context is sufficient.

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