Operator-only: update an existing named Cypher query template.
Same shape as create_query, but the key must already exist.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | ||
| npub | No | Required. The operator's npub (npub1...). | |
| row_limit | No | ||
| dpop_token | No | ||
| timeout_ms | No | ||
| access_mode | No | read | |
| description | No | ||
| param_schema | No | ||
| cypher_template | Yes |
| 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 must fully disclose behavior. It mentions it is an update (write operation) and operator-only, but does not detail error handling (e.g., if key missing), return format, or side effects. The output schema exists but is not referenced.
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 extremely concise with two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and access restriction, and the second adds a critical distinction. No wasted words.
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 complexity (9 parameters, low schema coverage) and the existence of an output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits parameter semantics, error conditions, and return value details, relying on a vague reference to create_query.
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?
Schema description coverage is only 11%, so the description should compensate. It adds no parameter details beyond the key existence constraint. It references 'Same shape as create_query' but does not explain any parameters.
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 updates an existing named Cypher query template. It uses a specific verb ('update') and resource ('Cypher query template'), and differentiates from the sibling create_query by noting the key must already exist.
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?
The description indicates it is 'Operator-only' and contrasts with create_query by requiring an existing key. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternative tools beyond create_query.
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.