Skip to main content
Glama

cypher-mcp

by io.github.lonniev

cypher_create_query

Operator-only: publish a new named Cypher query template.

The template must reference each declared parameter as $name (binding, not interpolation). param_schema maps param name -> {"type": ..., "required": true|false}; types: string, int, float, bool, list.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keyYesStable, human-meaningful key (e.g. 'holdings_by_sector').
npubNoRequired. The operator's npub (npub1...).
row_limitNoMax rows returned (default 1000).
dpop_tokenNo
timeout_msNoBest-effort query timeout (default 5000).
access_modeNo'read' (default) or 'write'.read
descriptionNoHuman-readable description of what the query returns.
param_schemaNoDeclared parameters and their types.
cypher_templateYesParameterized Cypher using $param placeholders.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions that the tool is a write operation ('publish'), and provides constraints on parameter naming and param_schema format. However, it omits details on side effects, authorization beyond 'Operator-only', error handling, or rate limits, leaving gaps for an agent.

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: two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides essential usage details. No redundancy or irrelevant information.

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 tool creating query templates with parameters, the description covers key constraints (operator-only, parameter binding, param_schema format). An output schema exists, so missing return value information is acceptable. Some details like default values or error cases are omitted, but overall it sufficiently informs an AI agent.

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 89%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds value by explaining the $name binding requirement and the param_schema format, which are not fully captured in schema descriptions. However, it does not elaborate on all parameters.

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 explicitly states 'publish a new named Cypher query template', which is a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like cypher_execute_query_by_key or cypher_list_queries, and additionally mentions 'Operator-only' scope.

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 indicates the tool is for operators only, implying access restrictions, but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives (e.g., cypher_update_query, cypher_delete_query). No guidance on prerequisites or context is provided.

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
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

C2.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

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.

Naming Consistency4/5

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.

Tool Count1/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Resources