Check this operator's adoption-request status at a chosen Authority.
Free. Polls the Authority MCP-to-MCP for the status of this operator's request (pending / approved / rejected / provisioned).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dpop_token | No | ||
| authority_npub | 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 carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is 'Free' and that it 'Polls the Authority MCP-to-MCP', giving insight into cost and communication method. It also enumerates possible statuses. This is good behavioral context, though rate limits or authentication requirements are not mentioned.
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 at two short sentences, with no redundant words. Every sentence adds value: first gives the core purpose, second adds cost and polling detail. No fluff.
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 tool is a simple status check with 2 parameters and an output schema, the description covers core purpose, cost, method (polling), and possible return values. However, it lacks explicit explanation of parameter formats or any edge cases. The output schema likely covers return structure, so overall it is sufficiently complete but with a minor gap in parameter documentation.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only implicitly references 'chosen Authority' for the required 'authority_npub' parameter but does not explain its format (e.g., npub string). The optional 'dpop_token' is completely undocumented in the description. This is a significant gap.
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 uses the verbs 'Check' and 'Polls' to clearly state the action (checking status) and identifies the resource as 'this operator's adoption-request status at a chosen Authority'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'optionality_request_adoption' or 'optionality_get_operator_onboarding_status' by focusing specifically on adoption-request status checking.
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 clearly states when to use the tool: to check the status of an adoption request at a chosen Authority. It implies a read-only polling operation but does not explicitly list alternatives or conditions to avoid. The context is clear, but exclusion guidance is missing, making it a 4.
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.
There is substantial overlap and confusion between multiple sets of tools. For example, `optionality_get_operator_onboarding_status` and `optionality_get_patron_onboarding_status` serve different identities but have a similar purpose that could be confusing. More critically, there are generic-named tools like `optionality_receive_credentials` and `optionality_receive_npub_proof` that both drain a relay mailbox in a very similar way, distinguished primarily by the type of token they return. The presence of both `optionality_session_status` and `optionality_service_status` is a major point of ambiguity, as both seem to check the health and configuration of the operator.
The naming convention is highly consistent, using a snake_case, verb_noun pattern (e.g., `list_journal`, `delete_journal`). The prefix `optionality_` is applied to all tools. The verb 'get' and 'list' are used predictably. Minor point deduction for a few outliers like `optionality_deal_scenario` and `optionality_judge_trade` which are domain-specific verbs that don't perfectly fit the CRUD pattern but are still clear in context.
With 71 tools, this server is severely over-staffed. This indicates poor separation of concerns, likely bundling multiple distinct domains or services into a single surface. A tool count this high dramatically increases cognitive load and API surface area, making it difficult for an agent to find the correct tool.
The tool surface covers an enormous amount of functionality, including imaginative ownership-proof flows via Nostr DMs. However, the `check_balance`/`purchase_credits` flow appears incomplete without a `refund_credits` tool for operator support scenarios. While the server has a `restore_credits` tool, it requires authentication. Overall, the surface is individually creative but organizationally incoherent.