Skip to main content
Glama

optionality-mcp

by io.github.lonniev

optionality_escrow_nsec

Deposit a freshly-generated nsec for operator-managed Nostr signing.

Trade-off: sovereignty for UX. Optionality holds the nsec encrypted in Neon (AES-256-GCM, key derived from operator nsec). Until you withdraw it, the operator can sign Nostr DMs on your behalf. Use this only for fresh game-persona keypairs — never for an existing Nostr identity that lives elsewhere.

The nsec MUST derive to the same npub that authenticated this call, or the deposit is rejected.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
npubNoRequired. Your Nostr public key (npub1...) for credit billing.
nsecYes
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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the encryption method (AES-256-GCM), key derivation, operator's ability to sign on behalf of the user, and the critical constraint that the nsec must derive to the same npub. This is transparent about behavior and risks.

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 concise (4 sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or extraneous information.

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 the complexity of the tool (cryptographic deposit, security implications) and the lack of annotations, the description provides a solid overview. It explains the trade-off, security, and constraints, but could mention the expected return value or confirmation behavior.

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 low (33%, only npub described). The description adds context for the nsec parameter (freshly-generated, must match npub), but does not explain npub beyond the schema's billing purpose or the dpop_token parameter. More parameter explanations are needed.

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's purpose in the first sentence: 'Deposit a freshly-generated nsec for operator-managed Nostr signing.' This provides a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from other optionality tools like withdraw.

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?

The description gives clear usage context: 'Use this only for fresh game-persona keypairs — never for an existing Nostr identity that lives elsewhere.' It explains the trade-off between sovereignty and UX, implicitly guiding when to use this tool versus alternatives like optionality_withdraw_nsec.

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