Skip to main content
Glama

optionality-mcp

by io.github.lonniev

optionality_fetch_scenario

Redeem a deal_scenario claim check.

Free. While status is running, wait poll_after_seconds and call again. When done, result holds the deal_scenario response (entry_id + scenario). expired means the claim is unknown or its result aged out — start a new deal_scenario request.

Input Schema

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

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?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains polling behavior, states (running, done, expired), and expected results. Missing details on error handling or side effects beyond 'Free' and auth via npub.

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, each adding value. Front-loaded with purpose, uses backticks for clarity. No wasted words.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Adequately explains polling logic for a tool with output schema, but misses parameter details (npub, dpop_token) and does not elaborate on output schema structure beyond 'entry_id + scenario'. Could be more complete for a tool with optional output schema.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Only claim_check is implied as the claim to fetch. npub and dpop_token are not explained in description despite schema coverage being low (33%). No details on parameter format or use beyond schema's brief npub description.

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 starts with 'Redeem a deal_scenario claim check,' specifying the action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling 'optionality_deal_scenario' which presumably creates the claim, and explains the polling lifecycle.

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?

Explicit instructions on when to call: while status is running, wait and retry; when done, result is ready; if expired, start new request. Lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives but provides sufficient context for typical use.

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