Skip to main content
Glama

cypher-mcp

by io.github.lonniev

cypher_restore_credits

Credit a patron's ledger from a BTCPay-settled invoice.

RESTRICTED to the operator — the operator owns the books and is the only party who can issue a manual credit grant. Patrons who believe they paid but never got credits must escalate to the operator's support, who then invokes this tool on their behalf.

Use cases: cold-start vault races during check_payment, ncred delivery hiccups, patrons closing Top-Off sheets before settle, any infrastructure incident that left an invoice settled at BTCPay but uncredited on the operator's ledger.

Idempotent — if the invoice is already credited (in the patron's credited_invoices), returns success with credits_granted=0.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dpop_tokenYesA kind-27235 Nostr event signed by the OPERATOR's nsec for this tool. Patron proofs are rejected.
invoice_idYesThe BTCPay invoice ID to verify and credit.
patron_npubYesThe patron's npub whose ledger receives the grant.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden. It discloses restrictions, use cases, and idempotent behavior (returns success with credits_granted=0 if already credited). Lacks explicit statement that it is a write operation, but the context implies ledger mutation.

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?

Description is concise and well-structured: bold lead, then paragraph, use cases, idempotency note. Every sentence adds value, no fluff. Front-loaded with purpose.

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 medium complexity, no annotations, and presence of output schema, the description fully covers purpose, who can use it, when to use it, and key behavior (idempotency). It is sufficient for an agent to decide and invoke 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 baseline 3. Description does not add parameter-specific information beyond the schema; it mentions no parameter names or constraints.

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 states 'Credit a patron's ledger from a BTCPay-settled invoice' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like cypher_purchase_credits and cypher_check_payment by clarifying it is for operator-only manual crediting after infrastructure incidents.

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 says RESTRICTED to operator, defines when to use (e.g., cold-start vault races, ncred hiccups), and when not (patrons must escalate). Also notes idempotency, guiding agents on safe invocation.

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