Skip to main content
Glama

dpyc-oracle

by io.github.lonniev

report_relay_failure

Report that a relay in the DPYC set was unreachable, and re-rank it.

A report does not set a relay's rank. It asks the Oracle to measure that relay now, and the Oracle's own probe decides. A false or mistaken report therefore costs one probe and changes nothing — no caller can demote a healthy relay by asserting that it is down.

Report only failures. Successes are far too frequent to be worth carrying, and a relay that works needs no announcement.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modeNoWhat was being attempted — ``"send"``, ``"read"``, or ``"unknown"``. Recorded for the human reading the logs.unknown
relayYesThe relay that failed. Must already be in the DPYC set — this tool re-measures the curated set, it is not a probe-anything primitive that can be aimed at arbitrary hosts.
signed_eventYesA Nostr event signed by ``reporter_npub`` whose content contains the relay URL, created within the last few minutes. Stateless by design: no challenge is issued first, because a challenge store would not survive this service's recycles — and a relay report is most needed exactly when relays are broken.
reporter_npubYesThe reporting operator's npub.

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 are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It goes well beyond the surface: it explains that a report does not directly set rank, that it triggers an Oracle probe, that a false report costs one probe and changes nothing, and that no caller can demote a healthy relay. This is strong behavioral disclosure.

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?

The purpose and key caveats are front-loaded, and the sections are logically ordered. A few phrases are somewhat redundant — 'a relay that works needs no announcement' restates 'Report only failures' — but the description remains focused and useful.

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 tool with four params, no annotations, and an output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, safety, and failure semantics thoroughly. The output schema is stated to exist, so the lack of return-value detail is not a gap.

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%, and the parameter descriptions already define relay, reporter_npub, signed_event, and mode in detail, including the stateless no-challenge design. The tool description adds behavioral context but not much additional parameter-level meaning, so the 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Report that a relay in the DPYC set was unreachable, and re-rank it.' This clearly identifies the action and scope, and the added context distinguishes it from read-only or status tools like get_relays or service_status.

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?

It explicitly says 'Report only failures' and explains why successes should not be reported. It also clarifies in the param description and narrative that the relay must already be in the DPYC set, ruling out arbitrary-host probing. This is clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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

All dpyc-oracle 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target a distinct resource or lifecycle step: role-specific registrations, campaign tools, relay tools, and doc/status tools are clearly separated. Minor overlap exists between lookup_member/resolve_service and about/get_rulebook, but the descriptions are detailed enough to route an agent correctly.

Naming Consistency4/5

Almost all tool names use lowercase snake_case with a verb_noun structure (register_*, get_*, list_*, update_*, report_*). A few noun-phrase doc/status tools like about, economic_model, network_advisory, and service_status deviate, but the overall pattern remains readable and predictable.

Tool Count2/5

At 30 tools, this surface is heavy and exceeds the 25-tool threshold, especially for what is mostly a registry/oracle service. Several tools are explicitly not yet implemented, and the count would benefit from deferring those stubs or consolidating related doc/resolution tools.

Completeness3/5

Core areas are covered: member lookup, role registration, operator updates, campaigns, relays, governance docs, and status/advisory queries. However, some workflows are stubs (ban elections, citizen renouncement) and lifecycle gaps remain for authority/advocate updates or deregistration, plus no ban-election status/result tool exists.

Resources