Skip to main content
Glama

cypher-mcp

by io.github.lonniev

cypher_redeem_coupon

Claim a coupon by its name (the code the operator shared).

Looks up the operator's coupon by code, validates the window and total cap, and records a per-patron redemption row. Subsequent paid tool calls on this MCP auto-apply the discount until uses_per_patron is exhausted.

Free — no credits required. Requires proof of npub. Idempotent: redeeming the same code twice returns the existing redemption.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeYes
npubYes
dpop_tokenNo

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?

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool validates window and total cap, records a redemption, is idempotent, and that subsequent calls auto-apply discount. It does not explicitly describe error handling on validation failure or response format.

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?

The description is four sentences with clear progression: purpose, process, ongoing effect, and idempotency. No redundant information; each sentence adds value.

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 absence of annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description covers core behavior: validation, idempotency, free usage, and npub requirement. It lacks details on dpop_token and possible error conditions, but is mostly complete for a redemption tool.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The description explains 'code' as the coupon name shared by operator and 'npub' as requiring proof. However, the third parameter 'dpop_token' is not mentioned at all. With 0% schema coverage, the description partially compensates but misses one parameter.

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 explicitly states 'Claim a coupon by its name (the code the operator shared).' This clearly identifies the action (claim), resource (coupon), and input (code). It distinguishes from sibling tools like cypher_list_coupons or cypher_mint_coupon.

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 indicates this is for redeeming a coupon ('Claim a coupon by its name') and notes that it is free and requires proof of npub. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide direct comparison to alternatives.

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