gittr-mcp

syncRepoPushPolicy

Sync repository push policy by upserting push paywall from a signed kind 30617 announcement event. Provide the full signed event JSON from publishRepoAnnouncement.

Instructions

POST /api/nostr/repo/push-policy-sync — upsert push paywall from signed kind 30617 (use announcement event JSON from publishRepoAnnouncement)

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": {
      "signedAnnouncementEvent": "<signedAnnouncementEvent>"
    },
    "name": "syncRepoPushPolicy"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`bridgeUrl`	No
`signedAnnouncementEvent`	Yes	Full signed 30617 event {id,sig,...}

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.3Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states 'POST' and 'upsert', indicating a mutation, but does not disclose auth requirements, reversibility, response format, or side effects. It also fails to explain the role of bridgeUrl in the operation.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the API endpoint and purpose. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is too brief to provide complete context. It does not explain what the upsert does to the bridge, what the response is, or what bridgeUrl is for, leaving critical gaps for correct invocation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 50%; only signedAnnouncementEvent has a description. The description adds clarity by telling users to use the event JSON from publishRepoAnnouncement, but leaves bridgeUrl completely undocumented, offering no compensation for the 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 the action: 'upsert push paywall from signed kind 30617', with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like getPushPaywallStatus by indicating a write operation and references the source event from publishRepoAnnouncement.

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 parenthetical 'use announcement event JSON from publishRepoAnnouncement' implies the tool is used after publishing an announcement, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusion criteria are given.

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

Deploy Server