Skip to main content
Glama

optionality-mcp

by io.github.lonniev

optionality_delete_patron_credential

Remove a single patron credential field.

Deletes one field from stored credentials without affecting other fields. Free. Proof of npub ownership is required — this is a write to the patron's sensitive credential vault.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
npubYesThe patron's Nostr public key (npub1...).
fieldYesThe credential field name to remove.
dpop_tokenYesRaw JSON of a kind-27235 Nostr event signed by npub — not base64, not NIP-98 'Authorization: Nostr <b64>' framing. Its `u` tag must hold THIS tool's exact name (from tools/list), not the endpoint URL; content:"", created_at within 60s of now, and a random `nonce` tag recommended. Or a cached dpop_token phrase.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states this is a delete operation (mutation) and requires authentication via dpop_token, but does not disclose aspects like reversibility, idempotency, error behavior, or whether it returns confirmation. Some transparency is provided but it is incomplete.

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 extremely concise: two sentences front-loading the core purpose, then adding key constraints. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff. This is efficient and clear.

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?

Given that an output schema exists (context signal), the description does not need to detail return values. It covers purpose, authentication requirement, and scope. However, it lacks information on behavior when the field does not exist or on potential errors, which would be helpful for a deletion tool. Still, it is fairly complete for a simple action.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds minimal parameter-specific value beyond stating the requirement for proof of ownership, which is already implied by the dpop_token description. The baseline score of 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 explicitly states 'Remove a single patron credential field' and 'Deletes one field from stored credentials without affecting other fields.' This clearly identifies the action (delete), the resource (patron credential field), and the scope (single field). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'optionality_update_patron_credential' and 'optionality_get_patron_credential_fields'.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description mentions 'Proof of npub ownership is required' and that it is a write to a sensitive vault, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., update or get). It lacks clear usage context or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to infer from the action name.

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