Skip to main content
Glama

cypher-mcp

by io.github.lonniev

cypher_request_credential_channel

Open a Secure Courier channel for credential delivery.

This is the CREDENTIAL-DELIVERY flow — use it to hand over a service secret (API keys, tokens). To merely prove you control an npub (the usual answer to a proof_required error), use request_npub_proof instead. Note: dynamic/OAuth2 services (e.g. Schwab) need NO couriered secret — check service_status first.

Sends a welcome DM with a credential template. The recipient must read the DM in their Nostr client, fill in the fields, and reply manually. This is a human-in-the-loop flow.

After calling this tool, STOP and tell the user what to do. Wait for the user to confirm they have replied before calling receive_credentials. Do NOT poll or retry — each receive_credentials call destructively drains the relay mailbox.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
serviceNoRequired. The credential service name (e.g., from get_operator_onboarding_status or get_patron_onboarding_status).
sender_npubNoRequired. The npub to send the template to.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It fully discloses the human-in-the-loop flow, the need to stop and tell the user, the requirement to wait for user confirmation before calling 'receive_credentials', and the destructive nature of the relay mailbox drain. Covers all key behavioral aspects.

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?

Very concise and well-structured. Starts with a clear one-liner, then a paragraph with usage guidance, then flow details, then specific instructions. Front-loaded with purpose. No 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 that output schema exists and no annotations, the description is complete: it covers the purpose, when to use, the asynchronous flow, human intervention requirement, and post-call actions. References sibling tools appropriately.

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%, baseline 3. Description adds context by explaining that 'service' is the credential service name from specific tools and that 'sender_npub' is the target npub. Also ties parameters to the overall flow of sending a DM template.

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 'Open a Secure Courier channel for credential delivery' and distinguishes from 'request_npub_proof' by specifying that this is for credential delivery (API keys, tokens) versus proving npub control. It also notes dynamic services need no couriered secret.

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 when to use this tool (for credential delivery) and when not to (for npub proof or dynamic/OAuth2 services). Provides alternatives: 'request_npub_proof' and 'check service_status first'. Also gives step-by-step instructions for the human-in-the-loop 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