Erase all pricing models and restore a viable default.
Deletes every stored model, then self-initializes a fresh one from the tool registry — all tools at 0 sats with proper UUIDs. Returns the new model.
RESTRICTED to operator — requires proof (nsec-signed).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dpop_token | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the destructive nature (erasing all models) and the reinitialization process. It also notes the integrity of the new model (proper UUIDs, 0 sats). Could be improved by mentioning if there are any side effects or dependencies, but the core behavior is clear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence adds value: action, method of reset, auth requirement. No extraneous text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the destructive reset nature, the description covers the action, the return (new model), and the authentication requirement. An output schema exists, so return values are detailed there. The description is complete for an operator tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'dpop_token' has no description in the schema and is not explained in the tool description. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate but does not. The parameter likely relates to the required auth proof, but this is not clarified.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool erases all pricing models and restores a default. It specifies the action (deletes every stored model, self-initializes a fresh one) and the result (returns new model). This distinguishes it from siblings like cypher_set_pricing_model, which updates individual settings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly restricts usage to operators with nsec-signed proof. It implies not for regular updates (use cypher_set_pricing_model instead). However, it does not explicitly list alternative tools or specify when not to use it beyond the operator restriction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
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.
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.
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.
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.