GitFlic MCP Server

gitflic_tag_get

Read-only

Fetches a GitFlic tag by name for a project; if project-scoped retrieval returns 400, use tag listing instead.

Instructions

Get a tag by name. NOTE: GitFlic returns 400 for project-scoped tag get; prefer tag list.

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_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.
`name`	Yes
`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

A3.6/5.0

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 structurally. The description adds genuinely new behavioral information that annotations cannot express: a known upstream 400 failure mode. It stops short of describing the response payload or whether the failure is consistent across all inputs.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the operational caveat front-loaded where an agent will read it before committing to a call. The uppercase NOTE is justified given the severity of the warning.

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 low-complexity read tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the definition covers purpose, the critical failure mode, and a fallback route. The residual gap is that it never resolves whether `project` can be satisfied in a way that avoids the 400, which is the one thing an agent still needs to know.

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 50%: `raw` and `fields` are documented in the schema, while `project` and `name` are bare. The phrase "by name" maps to the `name` parameter, but `project` remains unexplained in both schema and description, and the relationship between the two (project-scoped lookup) is only implied by the error note.

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 ("Get a tag by name"), which is enough to distinguish it from write-side siblings like gitflic_tag_create. Differentiation from gitflic_tag_list is supplied by the closing note rather than the opening sentence, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

The note gives a concrete when-not condition (GitFlic returns 400 for project-scoped tag get) and names the preferred alternative, tag list. What it does not say is whether any invocation of this tool succeeds, since `project` is a required parameter, leaving the agent unsure if the tool is ever the right choice.

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

Deploy Server