Skip to main content
Glama

cypher-mcp

by io.github.lonniev

cypher_report_issue

File a field report about this service as a GitHub issue on the operator's repo.

Found a tool's metadata or response wrong or confusing? Report it where the tool lives. The author of record is your npub — no npub / no proof, no issue — and it is stamped into the issue so the report is attributed to you, not the operator. Costs a small fee (a free write to an issue tracker would be abused). The report is PUBLIC and goes to the maintainers' normal triage; nothing is verified here.

Returns the filed issue's repo, number, and url. If this operator has not enabled field reports, returns an "issue reporting not configured" situation and you are not charged.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYesThe details — which tool, what was wrong, what you expected.
npubYesYour Nostr public key (npub1...); the report's author of record.
titleYesOne-line summary of the problem.
tool_nameNoOptional: the specific tool the report is about (e.g. "schwab_get_option_chain").
dpop_tokenYesRaw JSON of a kind-27235 Nostr event signed by npub — not base64, not NIP-98 'Authorization: Nostr <b64>' framing. Its `u` tag must hold THIS tool's exact name (from tools/list), not the endpoint URL; content:"", created_at within 60s of now, and a random `nonce` tag recommended. Or a cached dpop_token phrase.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the burden. It discloses that it creates a public GitHub issue, requires an npub as author of record, charges a fee, and returns issue details or a 'not configured' situation. It also details the dpop_token requirements (raw JSON, specific event kind, constraints). This is comprehensive.

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 front-loaded with the purpose in the first sentence and efficiently adds context in subsequent sentences. At ~100 words, it is concise but covers all necessary aspects without fluff.

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 (5 parameters, required authentication, cost, public reporting), the description covers all necessary context: what it does, how to authenticate, what happens on success (returns repo, number, url), and the edge case (not configured). An output schema is present, so return details are sufficient.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema. It explains that 'npub' is the author of record, 'body' contains details, 'dpop_token' must be raw JSON of a kind-27235 event with specific constraints, and 'tool_name' is optional. This aids correct usage.

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's purpose: 'File a field report about this service as a GitHub issue on the operator's repo.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the unique purpose distinguishes it from numerous sibling tools (e.g., cypher_list_issues, cypher_check_payment).

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 provides context on when to use the tool (when a tool's metadata or response is wrong/confusing) and mentions prerequisites (npub, dpop_token) and a cost. It does not explicitly compare to alternatives, but the unique purpose makes guidance clear.

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