GitFlic MCP Server

gitflic_project_get

Read-only

Resolve a project owner or alias to its UUID and metadata, so you can target GitFlic API calls that require canonical project identifiers.

Instructions

Resolve an owner/alias to its UUID + metadata.

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>"
    },
    "name": "gitflic_project_get"
  }
}

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.
`fields`	No	Return only these top-level fields (plus id keys), narrowing the response further.
`project`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.5.1Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered and the description's burden is lighter. It does add the useful outcome (you get a UUID plus metadata), but it says nothing about whether resolution is exact-match or fuzzy, what happens with ambiguous aliases, or what "metadata" contains. Note the annotations carry an unusual idempotentHint=false for a pure lookup, which the description makes no attempt to explain.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, and the input→output mapping is stated up front. It is efficient but so terse that it edges toward under-specification rather than being genuinely well-structured.

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?

With only 3 parameters, no nested objects, and no output schema, the bar is low, and naming the return payload (UUID + metadata) covers the essentials. Missing is any statement about accepted input forms beyond "owner/alias" (can it take a numeric ID?) or failure behavior on unknown aliases, which matters for a resolution tool used as a lookup step.

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 67%: raw and fields are documented in the schema, and project has no schema description at all. The description partially compensates by stating the project argument accepts an "owner/alias", which is the one piece of meaning the schema lacks. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema carries most of the load.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Resolve an owner/alias to its UUID + metadata" does state a verb and an input/output pair, so intent is graspable. But the tool is named gitflic_project_get while the description describes resolution, not retrieval, and it never distinguishes this from a near-identically purposed resolve/list sibling. An agent can guess the purpose but not confidently pick this over the alternatives.

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 whatsoever: no mention of when an alias must be resolved first, no prerequisites, no exclusions, and no named alternative. The agent must infer that this is a precondition step before tools that need a UUID.

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

Deploy Server