GitFlic MCP Server

gitflic_auth_bind

DestructiveIdempotent

Bind a GitFlic project to a specific account so all commands for that project use that account's token instead of the active one. Route work and personal repositories to separate identities.

Instructions

Bind (owner/alias) to . All subsequent commands scoped to that project resolve to 's token, overriding the active account. Refuses if has no token stored. Use to route different repos to different identities (work vs personal).

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": {
      "project": "<project>",
      "account": "<account>"
    },
    "name": "gitflic_auth_bind"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`raw`	No	Return the full, un-slimmed GitFlic response for THIS call (no token compression). Use when the default slim view dropped a field you need.
`account`	Yes	account name (must already exist via auth_login --as)
`project`	Yes	owner/alias, e.g. 'FerdBur/wave'

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.5.1Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, destructive, idempotent, closed-world behavior; the description adds substantive context beyond them: the binding persists and changes how all later project-scoped commands resolve, and the operation fails when no token is stored. It stops short of saying what happens to a pre-existing binding for that project (overwrite vs. error), which is the main residual behavioral gap.

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?

Four compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and effect, then the failure condition and the use case. Angle-bracket placeholders repeat what the schema labels already convey, but there is no filler.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a small mutation tool with no output schema and three fully described parameters, the description supplies the key prerequisites, the persistence/scope effect, and the motivating use case. Only the existing-binding conflict case and how to verify the resulting binding are unaddressed.

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 100%, so 'project' (owner/alias with example) and 'account' (must already exist via auth_login --as) are already documented in the schema. The description largely restates the same placeholder meanings rather than adding format or constraint detail beyond it, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Bind <project> (owner/alias) to <account>') and the effect on subsequent calls. It does not name a sibling such as gitflic_auth_unbind or gitflic_auth_switch, but the phrase 'overriding the active account' implicitly contrasts with switching rather than binding.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives a concrete usage context ('route different repos to different identities (work vs personal)') and a precondition for refusal ('Refuses if <account> has no token stored'), which is effectively a when-not condition. No explicit alternative tool is named for the inverse operation (unbind) or for switching accounts.

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

Deploy Server