Skip to main content
Glama
arbadacarbaYK

gittr-mcp

by arbadacarbaYK
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

publishRepoState

Publish repository state to Nostr (kind 30618). HEAD follows branch when passed, otherwise main or master, not the alphabetically first branch. The private key is loaded from .nostr-keys.json when omitted.

Instructions

Publish repository state to Nostr (kind 30618). HEAD follows branch when passed, otherwise main or master, not the alphabetically first branch. The private key is loaded from .nostr-keys.json when omitted.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
refsYes
branchNoDefault branch for the HEAD tag, for example main
relaysNo
repoIdYes
privkeyNoPrivate key (auto-loaded from .nostr-keys.json)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.0.12
    • addedInput schema / properties / branch
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Default branch for the HEAD tag, for example main",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / privkey / description
      Added value: +"Private key (auto-loaded from .nostr-keys.json)"
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "repoId",
-  "refs",
-  "privkey",
-  "relays"
-]New value: +[
+  "repoId",
+  "refs"
+]
  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 burden and does add real context: the Nostr kind (30618), the HEAD resolution rule (branch wins, else main/master, not alphabetical), and privkey auto-loading from .nostr-keys.json. It omits idempotency/overwrite behavior, permissions, and relay failure handling, so it is useful but incomplete for a mutation tool.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the two most failure-prone behaviors. No filler, though the HEAD/privkey notes could be compacted.

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 annotations and no output schema, so the description must stand alone for a 5-parameter publish tool. It covers the command's identity and two quirks but leaves the refs payload shape and relay targeting unexplained, which an agent would need to call this confidently.

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 40%, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully explains branch (HEAD selection) and privkey (auto-load source), but says nothing about refs, relays, or repoId, leaving three of five parameters undocumented in both places.

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 and resource ('Publish repository state') plus the target ('to Nostr (kind 30618)'), which is concrete enough to distinguish it from bare announcement tools. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling like publishRepoAnnouncement, but the 'state' framing separates it from announcement/delete siblings reasonably well.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no named alternative among the many publish* siblings (publishRepoAnnouncement, publishSoftwareAnnounce, publishStatusForRoot). The branch/HEAD rule is behavioral detail, not usage guidance, so the agent must infer when this tool is the right choice.

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