Skip to main content
Glama

cypher-mcp

by io.github.lonniev

cypher_session_status

Check operator readiness. Returns the operator lifecycle state and clear guidance on what to do next. Free.

Lifecycle states:

  • ready: Operator is warm and fully operational — vault AND pricing model verified. Proceed with tool calls.

  • warming_up: Operator is initializing (cold start). Try a tool call — it will warm up on demand.

  • misconfigured: Persistence rejected a query with a permanent SQL error (permission denied, missing relation). Paid tools will fail until the operator repairs the database — retrying does not help.

  • quota_exceeded: The persistence provider (Neon) answered HTTP 402 — the operator's database has exhausted its compute/storage quota, so the books are locked for billing. Paid tools fail; retrying does NOT help. The operator's Authority must restore capacity (upgrade the plan or wait for the quota reset). Free tools remain available.

  • not_registered: Operator has no Authority relationship yet. Call register_operator first.

  • no_identity: Operator nsec is not configured. Deployment issue.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
patron_npubNoOptional. If supplied, the response includes an ``upstream_oauth`` block with the patron's stored OAuth token expiry (runtime-derived from vault state) so a client can refresh proactively rather than reactively after a stale-token failure.

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 provided, so description carries full burden. It comprehensively explains each state, including implications like retrying not helping for misconfigured or quota_exceeded states, and notes that the tool is free.

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?

First line states purpose clearly, followed by structured bullet points for each state. While detailed, every sentence adds value; could be slightly more concise.

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?

Covers all possible lifecycle states with clear actions, and despite no annotations, provides sufficient behavioral context for an agent to determine readiness and next steps.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides for the optional patron_npub parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Check operator readiness' and enumerates specific lifecycle states, distinguishing it from sibling tools that perform other domain-specific operations.

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?

Provides explicit guidance for each lifecycle state (e.g., 'Proceed with tool calls', 'Try a tool call', 'Call register_operator first'), making it clear when and how to use the tool.

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