Skip to main content
Glama

optionality_ask_tip

Get a non-spoiler Socratic hint for an open journal entry.

history is an optional JSON-encoded array of prior {question, answer} turns from this clue conversation, so follow-on questions have context. The wheel caps it hard, so oversupplying gains nothing.

Returns a claim check, not the hint. Redeem the claim_check with optionality_fetch_tip, polling until status is done.

A degenerate question (empty or oversized) needs no LLM, so it returns a settled {status: "done"} nudge directly instead of a claim to poll.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
npubNoRequired. Your Nostr public key (npub1...) for credit billing.
historyNo
entry_idYes
questionYes
dpop_tokenNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses the claim-check model, polling requirement via separate tool, and degenerate-case behavior. With no annotations, this is strong but lacks details on billing or rate limits.

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?

Three concise sentences: purpose, parameter use, and return behavior. Front-loaded with the main action. No wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Adequately covers the two-step process, degenerate case, and history usage. Lacks full parameter explanations for entry_id and dpop_token, but overall sufficient given the output schema exists.

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 20%; the description adds meaning for history (JSON-encoded array) and question (degenerate handling) but does not explain entry_id or dpop_token. Partially compensates for schema gaps.

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 the tool returns a non-spoiler Socratic hint for an open journal entry, specifying verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling optionality_fetch_tip by explaining the two-step claim-check pattern.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Guidance on using history for follow-up context and notes on degenerate questions (empty/oversized) provide clear when-to-use advice. However, no explicit exclusions or comparisons to other siblings.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.