Skip to main content
Glama

cypher-mcp

by io.github.lonniev

cypher_get_query

Operator-only: fetch one catalog entry (template + schema + metadata).

Includes edit_url — a one-click deep link into the hosted Neo4j Browser that pre-targets this operator's AuraDB and loads the template in EDIT mode, so the analyst refines it in Neo4j's own UI and saves it back with update_query. Omitted if the operator's Neo4j credentials aren't delivered yet (best-effort; the raw template is always present to paste).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keyYes
npubNoRequired. The operator's npub (npub1...).
dpop_tokenNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses conditional behavior (edit_url included only if credentials are delivered, best-effort) and guarantees the raw template is always present. This gives the agent a good understanding of what to expect.

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 efficient: four sentences front-loading the core purpose, then adding key details about the edit_url. It is not verbose but covers necessary behavioral nuances without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (fetch by key) and the existence of an output schema, the description adequately covers what the agent needs: what is fetched, the conditional edit_url, and the fallback. It does not need to detail return fields since the output schema provides that.

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 description coverage is low (33%), and the description does not explain parameters beyond the tool's purpose. The key parameter is left without context, and npub's requirement is mentioned in schema but not elaborated. The dpop_token is not described. The description adds minimal value over the schema.

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 verb 'fetch' and the resource 'one catalog entry (template + schema + metadata)', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like cypher_list_queries (list) and cypher_create_query (create) by specifying it retrieves a single entry.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explicitly restricts usage to operators with 'Operator-only', and suggests a workflow: fetch with this tool, refine via edit_url in Neo4j Browser, then save with update_query. While it doesn't explicitly say when not to use it or list alternatives, the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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