Skip to main content
Glama

optionality-mcp

by io.github.lonniev

optionality_delete_operator_credential

Remove a single operator secret field.

Deletes one key from the operator's encrypted credential blob without touching the others — the field-level counterpart to forget_credentials, which wipes the whole row. Use it to retire a leftover after an SDK cutover (a Prefect key after Modal, or a stored but untemplated orphan like anthropic_api_key) without taking the operator down for a full re-delivery.

Stored-but-untemplated fields are first-class: the delete is keyed on what is vaulted, not on what the current template declares. Idempotent — already-absent fields report removed: false without rewriting the vault. RESTRICTED to the operator — requires proof (nsec-signed kind-27235 or a cached dpop_token phrase); patron proofs are rejected. A deletion is as destructive as a write.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fieldYesThe operator credential field to remove (templated or not).
dpop_tokenYesOperator proof for this tool.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It details idempotence (already-absent fields report removed:false), the operational scoping ('keyed on what is vaulted, not on what the current template declares'), and security restrictions ('requires proof... patron proofs are rejected'). No contradictions are present.

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?

The description is compact yet information-dense, with every sentence serving a purpose: stating the action, contrasting with an alternative, providing a use case, clarifying operational semantics, and noting authorization. No extraneous text; structure is logical.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (mutation with security constraints and two parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, when to use it, how it behaves, authorization requirements, and contrast with siblings. An output schema exists, so return value details need not be elaborated; the description even hints at output (removed: false).

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Although the input schema already describes both parameters (100% coverage), the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema. It explains that 'field' can be templated or not, that deletion is based on vaulted keys rather than templates, and details the nature of dpop_token (nsec-signed kind-27235 or cached, patron-proof rejection).

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 verb ('remove'/'deletes') and resource ('operator secret field') and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'forget_credentials' by specifying it operates at the field level. Examples like 'retire a leftover after an SDK cutover' further clarify the purpose.

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?

The description explicitly advises when to use this tool ('retire a leftover after an SDK cutover... without taking the operator down for a full re-delivery') and when not to (avoid full wipe implied via contrast with forget_credentials). It also specifies idempotence and authorization constraints, providing clear context for selection.

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