cypher-mcp

cypher_request_npub_proof

Request npub ownership proof from a patron via Nostr DM.

This is the npub-OWNERSHIP-PROOF flow — use it when a call returns proof_required. It proves the caller controls an npub; it does NOT deliver any service secret. To hand an operator its API keys or OAuth secrets, use request_credential_channel instead.

Sends a challenge DM that the patron must sign and reply to using their Nostr client. This is a human-in-the-loop flow.

After calling this tool, STOP and tell the user to check their Nostr client and reply to the challenge. Wait for the user to confirm they have replied before calling receive_npub_proof. Do NOT poll or retry — each receive_npub_proof call destructively drains the relay mailbox.

Returns a dpop_token — the one-time challenge nonce shown in the DM. Pass it to receive_npub_proof to collect the reply. It is a matching token, not a credential: on its own it authorizes nothing.

Lifecycle: receive_npub_proof returns the proof grant, which expires after the duration the patron named in their reply. When it expires, call request_npub_proof again for a fresh challenge, then wait for the user, then call receive_npub_proof.

Free.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`reason`	No	Optional. A human-readable purpose for the request ("I'm working on your request XYZ and need the Operator to do ABC for you"). Signed into the provenance attestation and shown in the DM, so the recipient sees why they are being asked — especially useful when the signer is unknown to them.
`verify_at`	No	Optional. A free-form statement of WHERE you (the initiating agent) already showed this proof's one-time code to the user — a URL, or "your Claude.ai conversation", "the Grok session". The OAuth 2.0 Device Grant ``verification_uri``, generalized: the user approves only if the code in the DM matches the one you displayed there, so an unsolicited request they've never seen is refused. Signed into the attestation.
`patron_npub`	No	Required. The patron's npub to request proof from.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedJul 21, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / verify_at

Added value: +{
+  "default": "",
+  "description": "Optional. A free-form statement of WHERE you (the\ninitiating agent) already showed this proof's one-time code to\nthe user — a URL, or \"your Claude.ai conversation\", \"the Grok\nsession\". The OAuth 2.0 Device Grant ``verification_uri``,\ngeneralized: the user approves only if the code in the DM matches\nthe one you displayed there, so an unsolicited request they've\nnever seen is refused. Signed into the attestation.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedJul 21, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / reason

Added value: +{
+  "default": "",
+  "description": "Optional. A human-readable purpose for the request\n(\"I'm working on your request XYZ and need the Operator to do\nABC for you\"). Signed into the provenance attestation and shown\nin the DM, so the recipient sees *why* they are being asked —\nespecially useful when the signer is unknown to them.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedJul 16, 2026

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 carries the full burden and does so richly: it discloses the human-in-the-loop nature, that a challenge DM is sent, that the return is a one-time nonce (dpop_token) that 'authorizes nothing' on its own, the destructive mailbox drain by receive_npub_proof, and the expiry/re-request lifecycle. This goes well beyond a bare mutation description.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and trigger, then well-sectioned (Returns, Lifecycle) with bold emphasis. It is somewhat long, but given the multi-step human-in-the-loop flow every sentence conveys routing or safety-relevant information rather than filler.

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?

For a complex, multi-call, human-in-the-loop handshake, the description covers trigger, alternatives, return token semantics, and lifecycle. Although an output schema exists (so return values needn't be explained), the added explanation of the dpop_token and expiry is helpful and leaves no gap an agent needs to call it correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents reason, verify_at, and patron_npub in detail. The description body adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource+channel: 'Request npub ownership proof from a patron via Nostr DM.' It also explicitly delineates scope ('proves the caller controls an npub; it does NOT deliver any service secret') and names the sibling it is not (request_credential_channel), so an agent can distinguish it without opening schemas.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('use it when a call returns proof_required'), names the alternative and its condition (request_credential_channel for API keys/OAuth secrets), specifies the human-in-the-loop ordering (STOP, tell user, call receive_npub_proof after confirmation), and states an explicit exclusion ('Do NOT poll or retry'). Nothing is left to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All cypher-mcp tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Context All Your Agents Can ShareAgents share what they learn, hand off work, and hold it when you switch models. Start with 5 GB free.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.