Skip to main content
Glama
arbadacarbaYK

gittr-mcp

by arbadacarbaYK
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersScoreDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

publishSoftwareAnnounce

Publish NIP-82 software announcements from a fetched forge payload to Nostr, enabling decentralized release notifications.

Instructions

Low-level: publish NIP-82 events from an already-fetched forge payload (ok:true + hashed announceable binary). Prefer announceSoftwareFromForgeRelease.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
appIdNo
forgeYesPayload from fetchForgeReleases with hash:true
relaysNo
topicsNo
appNameNo
licenseNo
privkeyYes
summaryNo
ownerPubkeyNo
nip34AddressNo
selectedApkUrlNo
selectedAssetUrlNo
assetUrlOverridesNodownloadUrl → public Blossom HTTPS blob URL
includeSiblingAssetsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.0.6
    • addedInput schema / properties / assetUrlOverrides
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "downloadUrl → public Blossom HTTPS blob URL",
+  "type": "object"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / includeSiblingAssets
      Added value: +{
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / selectedAssetUrl
      Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observedv1.0.3

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. It does disclose an important precondition ('already-fetched forge payload (ok:true + hashed announceable binary)') and the core behavior of publishing NIP-82 events. However, it does not mention signing requirements, relay broadcast implications, potential irreversibility of published events, or failure modes. This is more than a tautology but still leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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?

Two short sentences carry the essential meaning. The first front-loads the core purpose and prerequisite, and the second immediately points to the preferred alternative. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This is a complex 14-parameter low-level publish operation with no output schema and no annotations. The description is enough for tool selection but not enough for correct invocation: an agent would not know which optional fields matter, what the return value looks like, how relays are used, or what the expected event behavior is. The rich surrounding sibling context helps, but the description itself is under-specified for such a low-level tool.

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?

With only 14% schema description coverage and 14 parameters, the description needed to compensate for the many undocumented fields like privkey, relays, appId, ownerPubkey, and the various URL override options. The description only clarifies the forge payload requirement; the rest of the parameter semantics are left undocumented. The schema itself provides almost no help, so this is a notable gap.

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 a specific action ('publish NIP-82 events') and a specific resource ('an already-fetched forge payload'), and signals that this is the low-level variant. It also differentiates itself from the higher-level sibling by saying 'Prefer announceSoftwareFromForgeRelease', so an agent can tell them apart.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly tells the agent to prefer announceSoftwareFromForgeRelease over this tool. It also establishes when to use this tool: only with an already-fetched forge payload, which aligns with the schema's forge parameter description. This gives clear routing guidance without requiring the agent to inspect other tool schemas.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools