Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
gittr-mcp

gittr-mcp

by arbadacarbaYK
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

mergePullRequest

Merges a pull request by cloning/fetching the repository, merging the PR head into the base branch, and pushing to the bridge. Optionally sends a Nostr status update.

Instructions

Full merge: git clone/fetch with signed HTTPS auth, merge PR head, push to bridge, optional 30618+1631. Signer must be repo owner OR on latest kind 30617 merge_maintainers (if that tag exists) OR on maintainers when merge_maintainers is absent. Requires git on PATH. repoId optional if derivable from PR a-tag.

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": {
      "prId": "<prId>",
      "ownerPubkey": "<ownerPubkey>",
      "privkey": "<privkey>"
    },
    "name": "mergePullRequest"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
prIdYesPR event id (kind 1618)
relaysNo
repoIdNoRepository id/slug (optional if present on PR)
privkeyYes
baseBranchNoBranch to merge into (default main)
ownerPubkeyYesRepo owner hex or npub (must match PR a-tag owner)
mergeMessageNo
skipNostrStatusNoIf true, only push to bridge + state, no 1631

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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses signed HTTPS auth, the merge/push process, conditional authorization logic, and optional Nostr events (30618+1631). It also notes the external dependency on git. However, it does not mention failure modes, conflict handling, or side effects on existing refs, leaving some behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the core action in a colon-separated phrase. It conveys multiple pieces of information (auth, merge steps, optional events, authorization, dependencies) in just a few sentences without excessive verbosity. Slightly dense but generally well-structured.

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 complex operation with 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers key aspects: the merge process, authorization rules, prerequisites, and optional parameters. However, it omits details about return values, conflict resolution, and exact effects of the Nostr events. The description is adequate but not fully complete for such a multifaceted 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 description coverage is 63%, so the schema already documents many parameters. The description adds value by clarifying that repoId is optional if derivable from the PR a-tag and implies privkey is used for signed auth. However, it does not explain relays, mergeMessage, or other undocumented parameters, leaving some parameters without semantic enrichment beyond the schema.

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 tool's function: 'Full merge: git clone/fetch with signed HTTPS auth, merge PR head, push to bridge, optional 30618+1631.' This specifies the action (merge), the resource (PR), and the process, distinguishing it from siblings like pushToBridge or markPullRequestMerged. The verb 'merge' and the detailed steps leave no ambiguity.

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 provides prerequisites: signer must be repo owner or maintainer, git must be on PATH, and repoId is optional if derivable from the PR a-tag. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of related siblings like pushToBridge or markPullRequestMerged. The guidance is implied by the 'Full merge' label but lacks explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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