Skip to main content
Glama
arbadacarbaYK

gittr-mcp

by arbadacarbaYK
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

publishRepoAnnouncement

Publish repository to Nostr (kind 30617). Always writes the same clone addresses as the website Push (gittr, ngit, gitnostr, shakespeare, danconway). A GitHub URL is kept as the source, not as a clone.

Instructions

Publish repository to Nostr (kind 30617). Always writes the same clone addresses as the website Push (gittr, ngit, gitnostr, shakespeare, danconway). A GitHub URL is kept as the source, not as a clone. The private key is loaded from .nostr-keys.json when omitted.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
webNo
nameYes
cloneNo
relaysNo
repoIdYes
privkeyNoPrivate key (auto-loaded from .nostr-keys.json)
publicReadNofalse = private repo. Default true. Announcement name/description remain public on relays.
descriptionNo
pushCostSatsNoOptional pay-to-push; then call syncRepoPushPolicy with returned event

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.0.12
    • changedInput schema / properties / privkey / description
      Previous value: -"64-char hex or nsec"New value: +"Private key (auto-loaded from .nostr-keys.json)"
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "repoId",
-  "name",
-  "privkey",
-  "relays"
-]New value: +[
+  "repoId",
+  "name"
+]
  2. First observedv1.0.3

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but does supply real behavioral facts: it always writes a fixed set of clone addresses, treats a GitHub URL as source not clone, and auto-loads the private key from .nostr-keys.json. It still omits auth requirements, failure modes, and relay publishing behavior for what is clearly a mutation.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and free of filler. The reference to 'the website Push' is slightly opaque to an agent, but overall it is tight and earns its space.

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?

No output schema exists and annotations are absent, so the description should do more. It covers purpose and a few behaviors but says nothing about the required `repoId`/`name` parameters, relay targeting, or the outcome of a successful publish, leaving it only marginally complete for a 9-parameter mutation.

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 coverage is only 33%, so the description should compensate, and it does add meaning for `clone` (fixed addresses) and `privkey` (auto-loaded from .nostr-keys.json). But `web`, `relays`, `publicRead`, `description`, and `pushCostSats` receive no clarification beyond the schema, leaving a substantial gap.

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 specific verb+resource ('Publish repository to Nostr') and pins it to a protocol detail (kind 30617), which helps separate it from siblings like publishRepoState and publishSoftwareAnnounce. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself against those sibling publishing tools, so an agent must still infer the difference.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. The sentence about matching 'the website Push' describes output behavior rather than routing guidance, so an agent gets no signal about when this is preferable to pushToBridge or publishRepoState.

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