Skip to main content
Glama

cypher-mcp

by io.github.lonniev
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

cypher_claim_issue

Mark an issue as actively being worked at the start of an agent's turn.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
npubNo
titleNoIssue title (sets it if the node is new; omit to leave as-is).
activityYesWhat the agent is doing this turn: 'triaging' | 'fixing' | 'reviewing'.
issue_urlYesThe issue's actual GitHub URL (gh issue view <n> --json url). Required: an Issue node is never created without its URL.
repo_nameYesRepository name.
worked_byYesThe agent role picking it up: 'porter' | 'journeyman' | 'qa'.
dpop_tokenNo
issue_numberYesGitHub issue number.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added
  2. Removed
  3. Added
  4. Removed
  5. Added
  6. Removed
  7. Added
  8. Removed
  9. Added
  10. Removed
  11. Added
  12. Removed
  13. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / properties / issue_url / default
      Removed value: -null
    • changedInput schema / properties / issue_url / description
      Previous value: -"The issue's GitHub URL (gh issue view <n> --json url), for click-through."New value: +"The issue's actual GitHub URL (gh issue view <n> --json url). Required: an Issue node is never created without its URL."
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "activity",
-  "repo_name",
-  "worked_by",
-  "issue_number"
-]New value: +[
+  "activity",
+  "issue_url",
+  "repo_name",
+  "worked_by",
+  "issue_number"
+]
  14. Added

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the basic purpose but lacks detail on side effects (e.g., does it change issue status?), idempotency, authentication (npub, dpop_token fields), or error conditions. The agent is left guessing about behavior beyond the simple claim 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 a single sentence with no waste, but it could be structured to front-load more critical context. It is efficient, though borderline too short for the complexity.

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?

Given the tool has 8 parameters (5 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain workflow context (turn-based agent system), parameter dependencies, or usage expectations, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 coverage is 75%, but the description adds no value beyond the schema. It does not explain how parameters like npub or dpop_token are used, nor does it clarify the meaning of worked_by or activity values. The 25% undocumented parameters lack any description context, and the existing schema descriptions are adequate but not enriched.

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 action ('mark an issue as actively being worked') and the resource ('issue'), and specifies the timing ('at the start of an agent's turn'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like cypher_report_issue (creating) and cypher_issue_provenance (tracking history).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines1/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No usage guidelines are provided. There is no mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., issue must exist), or exclusions (e.g., not for finishing work).

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

All cypher-mcp toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources