Skip to main content
Glama
zzstoatzz

Tangled MCP Server

by zzstoatzz
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

tangled-mcp

MCP server for Tangled - a git collaboration platform built on AT Protocol.

reads go through bobbin, tangled's public XRPC API (api.tangled.org) — no credentials needed. writes (issues, comments, labels) are atproto records put directly on your PDS and require an app password.

note: this repository is mirrored to GitHub for deployment via FastMCP Cloud.

hosted server

a hosted instance runs at https://nate-tangled-mcp.fastmcp.app/mcp — no install needed:

claude mcp add --transport http tangled https://nate-tangled-mcp.fastmcp.app/mcp

for write access, pass credentials per request via headers:

claude mcp add --transport http tangled https://nate-tangled-mcp.fastmcp.app/mcp \
  --header "x-tangled-handle: your.handle" \
  --header "x-tangled-password: your-app-password"

your PDS is auto-discovered from your handle — self-hosted PDS works with no extra config.

Related MCP server: Git Workflow MCP Server

installation

git clone https://tangled.org/zzstoatzz/tangled-mcp
cd tangled-mcp
just setup
IMPORTANT

requiresuv and just

configuration

credentials are optional — only write tools need them. hosted/multi-tenant deployments can send them per request via x-tangled-handle / x-tangled-password headers, which take precedence over env. for local use, create .env:

TANGLED_HANDLE=your.handle
TANGLED_PASSWORD=your-app-password

usage

claude code

# read-only (no credentials)
claude mcp add tangled -- uvx tangled-mcp

# with write access
claude mcp add tangled \
  -e TANGLED_HANDLE=your.handle \
  -e TANGLED_PASSWORD=your-app-password \
  -- uvx tangled-mcp

cursor

add to your cursor settings (~/.cursor/mcp.json or .cursor/mcp.json):

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "tangled": {
      "command": "uvx",
      "args": ["tangled-mcp"],
      "env": {
        "TANGLED_HANDLE": "your.handle",
        "TANGLED_PASSWORD": "your-app-password"
      }
    }
  }
}

codex cli

codex mcp add tangled \
  --env TANGLED_HANDLE=your.handle \
  --env TANGLED_PASSWORD=your-app-password \
  -- uvx tangled-mcp

other clients

for clients that support MCP server configuration, use:

  • command: uvx

  • args: ["tangled-mcp"]

  • environment variables (optional, for writes): TANGLED_HANDLE, TANGLED_PASSWORD

development usage

uv run tangled-mcp

tools

repositories are owner/repo (e.g. zzstoatzz.io/tangled-mcp); handles (with or without @) and DIDs both work for the owner. issues are identified by at-uri.

discovery (no auth)

  • search(query, limit) - full-text search across repos, issues, and strings

  • list_repos(owner, limit) - list a user's repositories

  • get_repo(repo) - metadata: knot, default branch, languages, labels

  • get_record(uri) - fetch the full record behind any at-uri (strings/pastes, comments, ...)

git (no auth)

  • list_branches(repo, limit) / list_tags(repo, limit)

  • list_files(repo, path, ref) - browse the tree

  • read_file(repo, path, ref) - file contents

  • commit_log(repo, ref, limit) - recent commits

  • compare(repo, rev1, rev2) - diff two revisions

issues & pulls (no auth)

  • list_issues(repo, state, limit) - filterable by open/closed

  • get_issue(issue)

  • list_pulls(repo, status, limit) - filterable by open/closed/merged

  • get_pull(pull) - single PR with live state (derived from PDS status records, no index lag)

  • list_pipelines(repo, limit) - CI pipeline runs

writes (require credentials)

  • create_pull(repo, title, patch | edits, target_branch, body) - open a PR from git format-patch output, or from whole-file edits (no clone needed — the server synthesizes the patch)

  • create_issue(repo, title, body, labels)

  • update_issue(issue, title, body)

  • set_issue_state(issue, state) - close/reopen

  • set_pull_state(pull, state) - close/reopen a PR

  • comment_on_issue(issue, body)

  • delete_issue(issue)

development

just test   # run tests
just check  # run pre-commit checks

see docs/bobbin-api.md for notes on tangled's public API.

mcp-name: io.github.zzstoatzz/tangled-mcp

Available Tools

7 tools
create_repo_issueA

create an issue on a repository

Args: repo: repository identifier in 'owner/repo' format title: issue title body: optional issue body/description labels: optional list of label names to apply

Returns: CreateIssueResult with url (clickable link) and issue_id

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repoYesrepository identifier in 'owner/repo' format (e.g., 'zzstoatzz/tangled-mcp')
titleYesissue title
bodyNo
labelsNo

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescription
idYes
urlYesconstruct clickable tangled.org URL

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It reveals it creates an issue and returns a URL and issue ID, but does not disclose side effects, permissions, or rate limits. It is adequate but not richly transparent.

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?

The description is concise with a clear purpose statement followed by an Args list and Returns. It is front-loaded with the main action. A slightly more structured format or removal of repetitive schema info could make it more efficient.

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?

Covers the main purpose, required parameters, and return values. However, it lacks context on error handling, authentication, prerequisites, and how the tool fits with siblings. For a creation tool, this is sufficient but not comprehensive.

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%, so the description should compensate. It repeats the schema's parameter descriptions (e.g., repo format, optional body/labels) without adding significant new meaning or usage context beyond what is already in the schema.

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 'create an issue on a repository,' which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like delete_repo_issue, list_repo_issues, and update_repo_issue by focusing on creation.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use or when not to use this tool versus alternatives. The purpose is implied by the name and description, but there are no exclusions or context-specific recommendations.

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

delete_repo_issueB

delete an issue from a repository

Args: repo: repository identifier in 'owner/repo' format issue_id: issue number to delete

Returns: DeleteIssueResult with issue_id of deleted issue

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repoYesrepository identifier in 'owner/repo' format (e.g., 'zzstoatzz/tangled-mcp')
issue_idYesissue number to delete (e.g., 1, 2, 3...)

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescription
idYes

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It states deletion but does not elaborate on permanence, permissions, or side effects beyond the basic operation.

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?

Short and structured with Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise by omitting the redundant Args block.

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?

For a simple delete tool, basics are covered. Output schema exists, so return details are known. However, missing guidance on required permissions or potential side effects reduces completeness.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the description's Args section merely repeats schema info. No additional meaning or context is added.

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 'delete an issue from a repository', which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like create, update, and list.

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 guidance on when to use or when not to use this tool. It does not mention prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusions.

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

list_repo_branchesB

list branches for a repository

Args: repo: repository identifier in 'owner/repo' format (e.g., 'zzstoatzz/tangled-mcp') limit: maximum number of branches to return (1-100)

Returns: list of branches

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repoYesrepository identifier in 'owner/repo' format (e.g., 'zzstoatzz/tangled-mcp')
limitNomaximum number of branches to return

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescription
branchesYes

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states it returns a list of branches, without mentioning pagination, ordering, or that it's a read-only operation. The description adds minimal transparency beyond the obvious.

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?

The description is brief but essentially duplicates the schema. It lacks front-loading of key purpose; the tool name does that partially. Conciseness is acceptable but not optimally structured for quick comprehension.

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?

Given the tool is simple, has 2 well-documented parameters, and an output schema exists, the description is sufficient. It covers the primary purpose and return value, though it could mention the list's default ordering or page size.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage of parameter descriptions. The description repeats the same information (repo format, limit range) without adding new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool 'list branches for a repository' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_repo_issues or list_repo_labels, which target different entities.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives. However, the tool name and description are clear enough that an agent can infer it's for listing branches, not issues or pulls. Lacks when-not or alternative suggestions.

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

list_repo_issuesA

list issues for a repository

Args: repo: repository identifier in 'owner/repo' format limit: maximum number of issues to return (1-100)

Returns: ListIssuesResult with list of issues

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repoYesrepository identifier in 'owner/repo' format (e.g., 'zzstoatzz/tangled-mcp')
limitNomaximum number of issues to return

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescription
issuesYes

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states that it lists issues, without mentioning read-only nature, authentication needs, rate limits, or any ordering. The output schema exists but the description does not add behavioral context beyond the action.

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?

The description is concise and uses a clear structure (Args, Returns). It is front-loaded with the main action. Only slightly impacted by using Python docstring style which may not be universal.

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 simple list tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential parameters and purpose. It does not mention default ordering or filtering (e.g., state), but the schema limits scope. Completeness is adequate given the tool's simplicity.

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 the input schema already documents both parameters (repo, limit). The description adds a format hint for repo but otherwise repeats schema info. It does not significantly enhance understanding beyond what the schema provides.

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 'list issues for a repository', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (create, delete, update) and other list tools (branches, labels, pulls).

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 description does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is implied, there is no mention of when not to use it or comparison with sibling tools. Usage is clear from context but lacks explicit guidance.

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

list_repo_labelsA

list available labels for a repository

Args: repo: repository identifier in 'owner/repo' format

Returns: list of available label names for the repository

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repoYesrepository identifier in 'owner/repo' format (e.g., 'zzstoatzz/tangled-mcp')

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescription
resultYes

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes a read-only operation ('list') and specifies the return format (list of label names). It does not disclose potential pagination or rate limits, but for a simple list tool, this is adequate.

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 extremely concise, with a front-loaded sentence stating the purpose, followed by clear parameter and return documentation. Every sentence is necessary.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no annotations), the description fully covers its behavior, including the return type. It is complete for an agent to understand and invoke.

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%, and the description repeats the schema's description of the repo parameter without adding additional meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description adds no new semantic information.

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 it lists available labels for a repository, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools which deal with issues, branches, and pulls.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternatives are mentioned, but the context of sibling tools makes it clear this is for listing labels, not for other operations. Some guidance would be beneficial.

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

list_repo_pullsA

list pull requests created by the authenticated user for a repository

note: only returns PRs that the authenticated user created (tangled stores PRs in the creator's repo, so we can only see our own PRs).

Args: repo: repository identifier in 'owner/repo' format limit: maximum number of pulls to return (1-100)

Returns: ListPullsResult with list of pull requests

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repoYesrepository identifier in 'owner/repo' format (e.g., 'zzstoatzz/tangled-mcp')
limitNomaximum number of pulls to return

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescription
pullsYes

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description adequately explains the behavioral limitation (only own PRs) and the reason (PRs stored in creator's repo). It does not explicitly state it is read-only, but the context implies a safe operation. Returns a ListPullsResult, which is detailed in the output schema.

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?

The description is structured with a clear statement, a note, and an Args section. It is slightly verbose due to the note, but every sentence adds value. Could be more concise without losing clarity.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the presence of an output schema, the description covers the purpose, parameter details, and an important behavioral limitation. No critical information is missing for an agent to correctly select and invoke this tool.

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 the schema already describes both parameters (repo format, limit range). The description repeats the format and adds a note about the repo identifier, but does not add significant new meaning beyond what the schema provides. For high coverage, this is acceptable but not exceptional.

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?

Description clearly states the tool lists pull requests created by the authenticated user, and explicitly distinguishes it by noting the scope limitation (only own PRs). This separates it from sibling tools like list_repo_issues.

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 about only returning PRs created by the authenticated user provides important context for when to use this tool, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The rationale is given, which helps in decision-making.

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

update_repo_issueA

update an existing issue on a repository

Args: repo: repository identifier in 'owner/repo' format issue_id: issue number to update title: optional new title (if None, keeps existing) body: optional new body (if None, keeps existing) labels: optional list of label names to SET (replaces existing)

Returns: UpdateIssueResult with url (clickable link) and issue_id

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repoYesrepository identifier in 'owner/repo' format (e.g., 'zzstoatzz/tangled-mcp')
issue_idYesissue number (e.g., 1, 2, 3...)
titleNo
bodyNo
labelsNo

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescription
idYes
urlYesconstruct clickable tangled.org URL

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided. Description discloses that labels replace existing, title/body keep existing if None, and returns a URL and issue_id. However, it does not mention authentication, rate limits, or prerequisites like repo/issue existence, which would be expected for a mutation tool without annotations.

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 concise with clear 'Args' and 'Returns' sections, no redundant information, and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

With 5 parameters and an output schema, the description covers parameter behaviors and return type. It lacks error conditions or prerequisites but is adequate for a mutation tool. The output schema reduces the need for return details.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 40% (2 of 5 param descriptions) according to context, so the description adds value by explaining that title and body keep existing if None, and labels replaces existing labels. This clarifies behavior beyond the schema.

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 'update an existing issue on a repository' with specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_repo_issue and delete_repo_issue.

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 description implies usage for updating issues, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives like create_repo_issue or delete_repo_issue. The context from sibling names helps differentiate.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 4 tool updatesv0.0.12
    • Changedcreate_repo_issue4 fields changed
      • addedOutput schema / properties / id
        Added value: +{
+  "type": "integer"
+}
      • removedOutput schema / properties / issue_id
        Removed value: -{
-  "type": "integer"
-}
      • removedOutput schema / properties / repo
        Removed value: -{
-  "type": "string"
-}
      • changedOutput schema / required
        Previous value: -[
-  "repo",
-  "issue_id",
-  "url"
-]New value: +[
+  "id",
+  "url"
+]
    • Changeddelete_repo_issue3 fields changed
      • addedOutput schema / properties / id
        Added value: +{
+  "type": "integer"
+}
      • removedOutput schema / properties / issue_id
        Removed value: -{
-  "type": "integer"
-}
      • changedOutput schema / required
        Previous value: -[
-  "issue_id"
-]New value: +[
+  "id"
+]
    • Addedlist_repo_pulls
    • Changedupdate_repo_issue4 fields changed
      • addedOutput schema / properties / id
        Added value: +{
+  "type": "integer"
+}
      • removedOutput schema / properties / issue_id
        Removed value: -{
-  "type": "integer"
-}
      • removedOutput schema / properties / repo
        Removed value: -{
-  "type": "string"
-}
      • changedOutput schema / required
        Previous value: -[
-  "repo",
-  "issue_id",
-  "url"
-]New value: +[
+  "id",
+  "url"
+]
  2. 6 tool updatesv1.0.0
    • Changedcreate_repo_issue5 fields changed
      • addedInput schema / properties / labels
        Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "items": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "type": "array"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ],
+      "description": "optional list of label names (e.g., ['good-first-issue', 'bug']) to apply to the issue"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null
+}
      • removedOutput schema / additionalProperties
        Removed value: -{
-  "type": "string"
-}
      • addedOutput schema / description
        Added value: +"result of creating an issue"
      • addedOutput schema / properties
        Added value: +{
+  "issue_id": {
+    "type": "integer"
+  },
+  "repo": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "url": {
+    "description": "construct clickable tangled.org URL",
+    "readOnly": true,
+    "type": "string"
+  }
+}
      • addedOutput schema / required
        Added value: +[
+  "repo",
+  "issue_id",
+  "url"
+]
    • Addeddelete_repo_issue
    • Changedlist_repo_branches2 fields changed
      • removedInput schema / properties / cursor
        Removed value: -{
-  "anyOf": [
-    {
-      "anyOf": [
-        {
-          "type": "string"
-        },
-        {
-          "type": "null"
-        }
-      ],
-      "description": "pagination cursor"
-    },
-    {
-      "type": "null"
-    }
-  ],
-  "default": null
-}
      • removedOutput schema / properties / cursor
        Removed value: -{
-  "anyOf": [
-    {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    {
-      "type": "null"
-    }
-  ],
-  "default": null
-}
    • Changedlist_repo_issues7 fields changed
      • removedInput schema / properties / cursor
        Removed value: -{
-  "anyOf": [
-    {
-      "anyOf": [
-        {
-          "type": "string"
-        },
-        {
-          "type": "null"
-        }
-      ],
-      "description": "pagination cursor"
-    },
-    {
-      "type": "null"
-    }
-  ],
-  "default": null
-}
      • changedInput schema / properties / limit / default
        Previous value: -50New value: +20
      • addedOutput schema / $defs
        Added value: +{
+  "IssueInfo": {
+    "description": "issue information",
+    "properties": {
+      "body": {
+        "anyOf": [
+          {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          {
+            "type": "null"
+          }
+        ],
+        "default": null
+      },
+      "cid": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "createdAt": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "issueId": {
+        "type": "integer"
+      },
+      "labels": {
+        "default": [],
+        "items": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "type": "array"
+      },
+      "title": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "uri": {
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "uri",
+      "cid",
+      "issueId",
+      "title",
+      "createdAt"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  }
+}
      • removedOutput schema / additionalProperties
        Removed value: -true
      • addedOutput schema / description
        Added value: +"result of listing issues"
      • addedOutput schema / properties
        Added value: +{
+  "issues": {
+    "items": {
+      "$ref": "#/$defs/IssueInfo"
+    },
+    "type": "array"
+  }
+}
      • addedOutput schema / required
        Added value: +[
+  "issues"
+]
    • Addedlist_repo_labels
    • Addedupdate_repo_issue
  3. 3 tool updates
    • First observedcreate_repo_issue
    • First observedlist_repo_branches
    • First observedlist_repo_issues
Deploy Server
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Scored across 7 tools

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: issues (create, delete, update, list), branches (list), labels (list), and pull requests (list). No overlapping purposes.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent verb_repo_noun pattern (e.g., create_repo_issue, list_repo_branches), with snake_case throughout.

Tool Count5/5

7 tools is well-scoped for a repository management server, covering core operations without being overwhelming or sparse.

Completeness3/5

Issues have full CRUD, but branches and labels only have list operations, and pull requests are limited to listing only the authenticated user's PRs. Notable gaps exist for create/update/delete on other resources.

Maintenance

ActivityMaintained
ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

  • GitLab MR MCP

    kevinlin
    A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    Enables AI agents to interact with GitLab repositories, manage merge requests, review code diffs, post comments, and handle issues directly through natural language.
    32
    MIT

  • Git Workflow MCP Server

    archis17
    F
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    Not graded
    maintenance
    Enables AI assistants to interact with local Git repositories for operations like status, commits, branching, and diffs, plus GitHub API integration for managing pull requests when authenticated.
    -

  • mcp-git

    kwanLeeFrmVi
    A
    license
    B
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    Enables Git repository interaction and automation via LLMs, providing tools to read, search, and manipulate Git repositories.
    15
    107
    MIT