gittr-mcp

submitBounty

Claim a bounty by submitting your pull request and evidence for an issue, with payment via Lightning.

Instructions

Submit work on a bounty (claim it with PR/evidence)

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": {
      "issueId": "<issueId>",
      "prUrl": "<prUrl>",
      "evidence": "<evidence>"
    },
    "name": "submitBounty"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`prUrl`	Yes	URL to the PR with the work
`relays`	No
`issueId`	Yes	Issue ID to claim
`privkey`	No	Private key (auto-loaded)
`evidence`	Yes	Evidence/work description

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.3Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states the action without mentioning side effects, auth requirements, prerequisites, or return values. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient transparency.

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, efficiently worded sentence that front-loads the core action and uses a parenthetical to add clarifying context. No wasted words.

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?

Despite 5 parameters, 3 required, and no output schema or annotations, the description is minimal. It doesn't explain expected outcomes, the role of optional parameters, prerequisites, or what happens after submission. The tool would be hard to use correctly with only this description.

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 80%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds minimal value by tying PR/evidence to the submission action, but it doesn't explain optional params like relays or privkey beyond what the schema says.

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?

The description clearly states the action (submit work) and the resource (bounty), with a parenthetical clarifying the claim mechanism (PR/evidence). It distinguishes from sibling bounty tools like bountyClaimWithdraw by focusing on submission, but could be more explicit about what 'work' entails.

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 implies this is used when you have a PR and evidence to claim a bounty, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this instead of related tools like bountyClaimWithdraw or how to prepare prerequisites. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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

Deploy Server