Skip to main content
Glama

cypher-mcp

by io.github.lonniev

cypher_request_adoption

Ask a chosen Authority to adopt this operator (deferred courtship).

RESTRICTED to the operator — requires proof the caller controls this operator's npub. Resolves the Authority's MCP endpoint from the community registry, mints an inline ownership proof with this operator's nsec, and delivers the request MCP-to-MCP. The Authority records it as pending; its owner approves on their own time. Poll adoption_status for progress; the operator flips to ready once the Authority provisions it.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
noteNooptional message for the Authority owner.
dpop_tokenNooperator-npub ownership proof (inline kind-27235 or cached token).
service_urlNothis operator's MCP endpoint (advertised to the Authority).
authority_npubYesnpub of the Authority to request adoption from.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It thoroughly explains the flow: resolving the Authority's endpoint, minting an ownership proof, delivering MCP-to-MCP, and the deferred nature of the approval. It also describes the eventual outcome (operator flips to ready).

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 and then elaborates on the process. It is slightly long but every sentence contributes essential information. Could be slightly more concise by merging the sentences about the process without losing clarity.

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 complexity of the tool (4 parameters, one required, with an output schema), the description covers the entire workflow, prerequisites, and the deferred nature. It even references a sibling tool for polling. The output schema exists, so the description correctly avoids explaining return values.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for each parameter. The description adds value by explaining the role of `dpop_token` as an ownership proof and `service_url` as the operator's MCP endpoint, which goes beyond the schema descriptions. However, it does not detail the `note` parameter's purpose beyond 'optional message', which is already in the schema.

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 verb 'Ask' and the resource 'Authority to adopt this operator', and distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'adoption_status' by describing the initial request step. The phrase 'deferred courtship' adds clarity.

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?

Explicitly states the restriction to the operator and the requirement for ownership proof. Explains the process and suggests polling adoption_status. However, does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or provide alternative tools for different scenarios.

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