Skip to main content
Glama

optionality-mcp

by io.github.lonniev

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

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.

All optionality-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

B3.1/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

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.

Naming Consistency4/5

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.

Tool Count1/5

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.

Completeness3/5

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.

Resources