GitFlic MCP Server

gitflic_tag_create

DestructiveIdempotent

Create lightweight or annotated tags in GitFlic for a project at a branch or specific commit, with an optional annotation message.

Instructions

Create a new tag (lightweight or annotated).

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": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "gitflic_tag_create"
  }
}

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.
`name`	Yes
`branch`	No	Branch to tag (default: master)
`commit`	No	Commit hash to tag (overrides --branch)
`message`	No	Annotation message
`project`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.5.1Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the description's remaining burden is contextual detail. It adds only the lightweight-vs-annotated distinction and says nothing about behavior when the tag already exists, what happens on a protected branch, or how the two modes differ in effect.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording, which is structurally sound. However, at this length it crosses from concise into under-specified for a six-parameter destructive mutation tool.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description needn't explain return values, and the annotations cover the risk profile. But with two required parameters undocumented and a destructive operation, an agent is left guessing about target identification and mode selection.

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 coverage is 67%, and the two required parameters, 'project' and 'name', carry no descriptions at all, so the description is the agent's only chance to clarify them — and it says nothing. It also does not state that providing 'message' is what makes the tag annotated, nor how 'commit' and 'branch' interact beyond what the schema already notes.

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 (create a tag) and names the two tag modes, which is enough to distinguish it from gitflic_tag_get and gitflic_tag_list without opening either schema. It stops short of 5 because it never explicitly routes the agent away from those siblings.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. The parenthetical 'lightweight or annotated' hints at a choice but does not explain the condition that selects it (presumably whether a message is supplied) or any prerequisites such as permissions on the project.

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

Deploy Server