Record an enforceable code invariant.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Invariant name, e.g. 'exactly two transaction types'. | |
| npub | No | ||
| rule | Yes | The rule stated plainly (the enforceable 'MUST NOT' / cardinality). | |
| severity | No | Enforceability band: 'Violation' | 'Warning' | 'Info' (SHACL-ish). | Violation |
| dpop_token | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / severityAdded value: +{
+ "default": "Violation",
+ "description": "Enforceability band: 'Violation' | 'Warning' | 'Info' (SHACL-ish).",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Record' which implies mutation, but it does not mention authentication requirements, side effects, overwrite behavior, validation, or what happens on conflict. The schema's severity parameter adds slight context, but the description itself is nearly silent on behavior.
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 a single well-formed sentence with no fluff or repetition. It is appropriately front-loaded, though it may be too terse to be fully useful.
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 the tool's complexity (five parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a large sibling set), this one-line description is insufficient. It does not explain return behavior, prerequisites, or how this assertion tool relates to guarding, listing, or checking invariants.
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?
The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the input schema. Schema coverage is 60% (three of five parameters have descriptions), leaving npub and dpop_token unexplained, and the description does not compensate for this gap or clarify the relationship between parameters like name and rule.
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 states a clear action ('Record') and a specific resource ('enforceable code invariant'), which communicates the tool's primary purpose. However, it does not distinguish this tool from closely related siblings like cypher_assert_rationale or cypher_guard_invariant_symbol.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives. It is a bare statement of what the tool does without any context for selection among the many invariant-related sibling tools.
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.