Skip to main content
Glama

cypher-mcp

by io.github.lonniev

cypher_receive_credentials

Pick up credentials from the Secure Courier.

Completes the CREDENTIAL-DELIVERY flow (the ownership-proof counterpart is receive_npub_proof).

Call this only after the user confirms they have replied. Deterministic, one-shot retrieval: name the response you want with (sender_npub, service, dpop_token) and the tool drains ONLY the rendezvous relay that channel was pinned to. Every popped DM with the wrong session phrase is deleted and its sender is NACK'd; the first DM with the matching phrase is accepted (ACK'd) and the scan stops. If none match, the queue is drained and a courier_not_found result is returned. Do NOT poll, loop, or retry.

If a credential_card (ncred1...) is provided, it is redeemed directly without any relay access (dpop_token not required for that path). On success, the payment processor client is reinitialized from the new credentials — no server restart needed.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
serviceNoRequired. The credential service name (must match the service used in request_credential_channel).
dpop_tokenNoRequired. The session phrase returned by request_credential_channel for this exact channel.
sender_npubNoRequired. The npub that sent the credentials.
credential_cardNoOptional. An ncred1... card to redeem directly (bypasses the relay drain; dpop_token not needed).

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, the description fully details deterministic one-shot retrieval, draining only the relevant relay, deletion of wrong DMs, first-match acceptance, and result scenarios like courier_not_found. It also explains credential_card bypass and payment processor reinitialization.

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 a single paragraph but well-structured, with all relevant info. It is slightly dense but not verbose; every sentence serves a purpose.

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 complexity (4 params, two distinct paths, and an output schema), the description is complete. It covers when to call, how each parameter works, behaviors for success/failure, and post-call effects. No gaps are apparent.

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?

The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the roles of sender_npub, service, dpop_token as a session phrase, and credential_card as optional bypass. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; the description adds sufficient extra context.

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 picks up credentials from the Secure Courier, completing the CREDENTIAL-DELIVERY flow. It distinguishes from sibling 'receive_npub_proof' as the ownership-proof counterpart, using specific verbs and resource.

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?

It explicitly says 'Call this only after the user confirms they have replied' and warns against polling, looping, or retrying. It describes when to use the credential_card path vs. the relay path, but does not explicitly list alternatives to this tool outside of the flow.

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