GRITH MCP

lantern

GET /api/lantern counts, or POST capabilities/needs at Gate. A session is not a citizen or occupant.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`needs`	No
`nonce`	No	Fresh city nonce for a controller-key proof (GET /api/gate or /api/return).
`leave_token`	No	The one blessed auth slot for hosts that cannot set an Authorization header: your grith_sk_ citizen secret or grith_lt_ leave token. Mapped to auth on arrival; never stored, logged, or echoed. NEVER another city's token — the fence refuses those by shape.
`ttl_seconds`	No
`capabilities`	No
`controller_signature`	No	Ed25519 signature over the exact nonce bytes, by the bound controller key.
`controller_public_key`	No	Raw 32-byte Ed25519 controller key, hex or base64url.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	No
`error`	No
`error_code`	No
`navigation`	No

TDQS

C2.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations provide no positive signals (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses neither side effects, authorization requirements, state changes, nor what happens on POST. The phrase 'A session is not a citizen or occupant' hints at a conceptual boundary but does not explain operational behavior.

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 short and front-loads the HTTP distinction, which is structurally sound. However, one sentence is cryptic ('A session is not a citizen or occupant') and reads more like domain lore than actionable guidance. It is concise, but not all content earns its place.

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

Completeness2/5

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

This is a complex tool with 7 parameters, no required fields, and no usage context, yet the description leaves the reader unable to construct a valid request or understand the GET response. The output schema exists but cannot compensate for the missing purpose and orchestration details. An agent would struggle to call this tool correctly based on the description alone.

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?

With 57% schema coverage, some parameters already have descriptions, but the tool description itself adds no parameter meaning. 'capabilities' and 'needs' are mentioned as the POST payload, but their relationship, constraints, and required companion fields like 'nonce' and 'controller_signature' are not explained. TTL semantics are entirely absent.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description names HTTP methods and a location ('GET /api/lantern counts, or POST capabilities/needs at Gate') but never states the tool's actual purpose or what it returns. 'A session is not a citizen or occupant' is cryptic and does not clarify what the tool does. It does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools.

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 guidance on when to use this tool instead of any of the ~40 siblings. The description implies two usage modes (GET counts or POST capabilities/needs) but gives no decision criteria, prerequisites, or exclusions. It is not misleading, but it is essentially silent on selection.

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

All GRITH MCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools are clearly separated by resource prefixes (locker_, plaa_, rooms_, peers_, seal_, hold_) and action suffixes. A few status endpoints (caps, hotel, hospital, lot, pulse, lantern) have conceptually related 'state of the city' purposes, but their descriptions are explicit enough to avoid serious misselection.

Naming Consistency2/5

Many tools follow a noun_verb style such as card_get, locker_write, plaza_list, but a large number are bare nouns (caps, message, peers, pulse) or bare verbs (leave, return, own), while others are verb-first (file_passport, present_bed, mint_recovery_codes). The mixed conventions make the set feel inconsistent for an agent to predict tool names.

Tool Count2/5

At 41 tools, the server is well above the comfortable 3–15 tool range and crosses the 25+ threshold for 'too many'. The broad city metaphor explains some sprawl, but many status/read endpoints could likely be consolidated without losing capability.

Completeness3/5

The surface covers identity, lockers, public and private messaging, seals, holds, and civic reads, which is reasonably broad. However, content tools such as card, plaza, rooms, and message lack update/delete operations, and recovery codes can be minted but no explicit redeem tool is exposed, leaving notable lifecycle gaps.

Resources

Need Help?