Skip to main content
Glama

cypher-mcp

by io.github.lonniev

cypher_delete_operator_credential

Remove a single operator secret field.

Deletes one key from the operator's encrypted credential blob without touching the others — the field-level counterpart to forget_credentials, which wipes the whole row. Use it to retire a leftover after an SDK cutover (a Prefect key after Modal, or a stored but untemplated orphan like anthropic_api_key) without taking the operator down for a full re-delivery.

Stored-but-untemplated fields are first-class: the delete is keyed on what is vaulted, not on what the current template declares. Idempotent — already-absent fields report removed: false without rewriting the vault. RESTRICTED to the operator — requires proof (nsec-signed kind-27235 or a cached dpop_token phrase); patron proofs are rejected. A deletion is as destructive as a write.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fieldYesThe operator credential field to remove (templated or not).
dpop_tokenYesOperator proof for this tool.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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 declares: field-level mutation, idempotency (already-absent fields report `removed: false` without rewriting), restriction to operator (requires nsec-signed proof or cached dpop_token, patron proofs rejected), and signals destructiveness ('as destructive as a write'). No annotation contradiction.

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 well-structured with a clear first sentence announcing the primary action, followed by explanatory paragraphs. Every sentence adds value. It could be slightly more concise by trimming the SDK cutover example without losing clarity, but remains efficient.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 params, simple input schema), the description fully covers purpose, restrictions, idempotency, side effects, and how it differs from the sibling tool. The output schema exists, so return value explanation is not needed. Nothing substantive is missing.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context for 'field' (explains it works on stored values, not template declarations) but does not elaborate on 'dpop_token' format or generation. It addresses the 'field' parameter's nuance beyond the schema's terse description, but does not significantly enhance understanding of 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 specifies a precise verb-resource pair ('Remove a single operator secret field') and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling `forget_credentials` by contrasting field-level vs. whole-row deletion. The use case ('retire a leftover after an SDK cutover') is concrete and memorable.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly states when to use this tool ('retire a leftover'), what it does not do (does not touch other fields), and names the sibling alternative (`forget_credentials` for full wipe). It also specifies what gets deleted (stored-but-untemplated fields) and notes idempotency behavior.

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