Skip to main content
Glama

cypher-mcp

by io.github.lonniev

cypher_list_canonical_identities

Return canonical (tool_id, mcp_name, …) for every tool the wheel exposes.

The authoritative source for any client (Studio, agents, FE) that needs to know how this MCP identifies its tools. Reconcile uses this output to UUID-join against the stored pricing model — no name-based UUID derivation, no guessing.

Includes both ToolIdentity-seeded tools and any UUID recorded by @paid_tool that is missing from the registry. The latter appear with registered: false (and in the top-level unregistered array) so Reconcile can flag deploy drift instead of silently reporting clean when a live tool was never seeded (#174).

If the operator renames a function or rebrands a slug, the mcp_name in this output changes but tool_id stays. That's the whole point of the canonical-UUID design.

Also diffs the live FastMCP wire surface against the registry. Tools exposed on the wire but absent from the registry appear in unregistered so Reconcile can flag deploy drift instead of silently under-reporting (issue #175).

Free, no side effects.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It explicitly states 'Free, no side effects,' discloses the inclusion of unregistered tools with 'registered: false', and explains the canonical-UUID design rationale (tool_id stays stable while mcp_name can change). It also discloses the live wire-surface diff behavior. The description adds substantial context beyond what any structured field would provide.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is informative but somewhat verbose at ~200 words for a zero-parameter list tool. There's some redundancy: the 'unregistered' flag/drift concept is explained twice (once for UUID-missing tools via #174, once for wire-surface diff via #175). The core message could be tightened, though each section does add distinct value.

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?

This is a low-complexity zero-param tool with an output schema present. The description thoroughly covers what's returned, why it matters, how it's used by Reconcile, and the drift-detection behavior. It also explains behavioral nuances (UUID stability across renames) that an agent needs to interpret results correctly. Complete for this tool's purposes.

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?

This tool has 0 parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 4 (no params means description needn't compensate). The description notes what the output array contains (tool_id, mcp_name, registered flag, top-level unregistered array), providing semantic context for the returned data despite no input params.

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 uses a specific verb+resource construction: 'Return canonical (tool_id, mcp_name, …) for every tool the wheel exposes.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on the canonical identity mapping and UUID reconciliation, which no sibling tool name suggests.

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 states it is 'The authoritative source for any client (Studio, agents, FE)' and that 'Reconcile uses this output to UUID-join against the stored pricing model.' It also names specific downstream consumers and clearly delineates what this tool does versus sibling identity/provenance tools.

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