Skip to main content
Glama

cypher-mcp

by io.github.lonniev

cypher_publish_tool

Operator-only: expose a catalog query as a named, typed MCP tool.

Projects the published query as a first-class tool named cypher_<key> whose flat, typed parameters come from the query's param schema (e.g. cypher_find_airline_flights(from_city, to_city)). The tool is registered immediately but starts unpriced — it appears in Pricing Studio like any new tool; set its price there. Until priced, calls return "not priced yet (TBD)". Patrons then call it by name with typed params instead of execute_query_by_key.

The key must be a valid tool identifier (^[a-z][a-z0-9_]*$). Reconnect to see the new tool in the tool list.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keyYesAn existing catalog query key (see ``list_queries``).
npubNoRequired. The operator's npub (npub1...).
dpop_tokenNo
tool_intentNoOne-line description shown as the tool's purpose (defaults to the query's description).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Discloses key behaviors: tool names as cypher_<key>, immediate registration but unpriced state, return message 'not priced yet (TBD)', key validation regex, and need to reconnect. Could mention conflict handling if key already published, but overall informative.

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?

Concise three-paragraph structure with no fluff. First sentence captures essence, subsequent details are front-loaded and relevant.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Covers key aspects: operator restriction, naming, pricing, and key validation. However, missing error scenarios (e.g., key not found, duplicate key) and dpop_token usage. Output schema exists, so return values not needed.

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 coverage is 75%, baseline near 3, but description states npub as 'Required' while schema lists it as optional with default, creating a contradiction. Also dpop_token lacks schema description and description adds no value. tool_intent correctly explained.

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?

Clear verb 'expose' and resource 'catalog query as a named, typed MCP tool'. Distinguishes from sibling 'cypher_execute_query_by_key' by stating patrons use the published tool instead. Naming convention and operator-only scope are explicit.

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 'Operator-only' to restrict usage, and advises patrons to call the published tool 'instead of execute_query_by_key'. also explains pricing implication that tool starts unpriced, guiding when it can be used.

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