Check this operator's adoption-request status at a chosen Authority.
Free. Polls the Authority MCP-to-MCP for the status of this operator's request (pending / approved / rejected / provisioned).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dpop_token | No | ||
| authority_npub | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavior. It states the tool is 'Free' and 'Polls the Authority MCP-to-MCP', indicating a read-only, network-dependent action. It does not mention side effects, authorization needs, rate limits, or whether the polling is synchronous.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with two short sentences. Each sentence provides distinct information: the main action and additional context (free, polling, possible statuses). No redundancy, and the primary purpose is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and an output schema that exists but isn't shown, the description provides a reasonable overview but lacks parameter explanations and details on output format. It mentions possible statuses, which is helpful, but does not cover required vs optional parameters or behavior nuances.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description does not explain the parameters 'dpop_token' or 'authority_npub'. 'authority_npub' is hinted at by 'chosen Authority', but 'dpop_token' is completely ignored. The description adds no value beyond the schema in explaining parameter meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool checks adoption-request status for an operator at an authority. It lists possible statuses (pending/approved/rejected/provisioned), which adds specificity. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from similar sibling tools like 'cypher_request_adoption' or 'cypher_get_operator_onboarding_status', slightly reducing clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives, or what prerequisite steps (e.g., having made an adoption request) are needed. The context for invoking this tool is implied but not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The set is heavily clustered: audit_why_exists, explain_capability, suggest_capability_why, and authorize_capability_why all answer the same basic 'why does this capability exist?' question and differ mainly in provenance/authority. Many status and provenance tools (adoption_status, session_status, service_status, issue_provenance, pr_provenance, symbol_provenance, service_provenance) also blur together without close reading.
The overwhelming majority of tools follow a predictable cypher_verb_noun pattern in snake_case, which provides strong naming consistency across a very large surface. Minor deviations such as cypher_oracle_about, cypher_oracle_how_to_join, cypher_which_service_handles, and cypher_what_realizes_capability are noticeable but do not break the overall pattern.
112 tools is an extreme count for a single MCP server, regardless of how well the clusters are named; it heavily burdens tool selection, context, and agent discovery. The set spans unrelated domains including payments, coupons, credentials, provenance, issues, patents, queries, pricing, and NOS transformations, which should be split into separate focused servers.
Many domain clusters have strong lifeycle coverage: COUPs have mint/list/update/delete/redeem, credentials have courier delivery/box status/update/delete/forget, and the named-query catalog has full CRUD plus published-tool management. Minor gaps exist—e.g., no generic list_services, no delete for capabilities, and no close/resolve action for issues—but most flows have no outright dead end.