Skip to main content
Glama

cypher-mcp

by io.github.lonniev

cypher_execute_query_by_key

Execute a published, parameterized Cypher query by its key.

You supply the key of an operator-published query plus its parameters. The operator owns the query text; you never see or write raw Cypher. If the operator has published a query as a named tool (e.g. cypher_find_airline_flights), you can call that directly instead.

Billing note: you are charged only for a delivered answer. If the key is unknown, the parameters are invalid, or the query fails, the call raises and your debit is rolled back (no charge for value not delivered).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keyYesThe published query key (e.g. 'holdings_by_sector').
npubNoRequired. Your Nostr public key (npub1...) for credit billing.
paramsNoParameters for the query — bound as Cypher $params, never interpolated. Must match the query's declared schema.
dpop_tokenNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses: operator owns query text, user never sees raw Cypher, billing rollback on error, params are bound not interpolated. These are critical behavioral traits beyond the schema.

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?

Three short paragraphs, each with distinct purpose: purpose, usage alternative, billing note. Efficiently front-loaded with no redundant sentences.

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 has 4 parameters (one required), no annotations, but has output schema, the description covers the key concept, security (no direct Cypher), billing behavior, and parameter usage. It is complete for an agent to decide and invoke correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 75% (3 of 4 params described). The description adds value by explaining that params are bound as Cypher $params and never interpolated, and must match the query's schema. Dpop_token lacks description but is likely for auth; some gap remains.

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 tool executes a published Cypher query by key, with specific verb 'execute a published, parameterized Cypher query'. It distinguishes from sibling tools that are named queries (e.g., cypher_find_airline_flights), noting those should be called directly instead.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use (supply key and params) and when not to (if operator published a named tool, call that). Also provides billing context: charged only for delivered answer, no charge on failure (unknown key, invalid params).

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