Skip to main content
Glama

optionality-mcp

by io.github.lonniev

optionality_list_journal

Server-side sorted, grouped, paginated list of the caller's journal.

Sorting and grouping are done in SQL, so each page is a slice of the fully-ordered dataset. Returns {total, page, page_size, groups, entries}; groups carries per-group counts over the whole set.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
npubNoRequired. Your Nostr public key (npub1...) for credit billing.
pageNo0-indexed page number.
statusNoOptional. ``open`` | ``submitted`` | ``evaluated`` | ``abandoned``.
group_byNo``none`` | ``historicity`` | ``difficulty`` | ``symbol``.none
sort_colNo``created`` | ``updated`` | ``symbol`` | ``historicity`` | ``difficulty`` | ``grade`` | ``score`` | ``status``.created
sort_dirNoRow order, ``asc`` | ``desc``.desc
page_sizeNoRows per page (1..200, default 25).
dpop_tokenNo
group_sortNoGroup order, ``asc`` | ``desc``.asc

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. Discloses SQL-based sorting/grouping and that each page is a slice of the fully-ordered dataset. Also specifies return structure. Misses explicit read-only or auth requirements, but list implies read-only.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then behavioral detail and return format. No fluff, every sentence adds unique value.

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?

For a list tool with 9 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the key behavioral traits (SQL sorting, pagination) and the return structure. Given output schema existence, no need to enumerate return fields.

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 89% (8 of 9 parameters described). Description adds context about SQL processing but does not elaborate on any parameter meaningfully beyond the existing schema descriptions. The undocumented `dpop_token` is not addressed.

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?

Clearly states it returns a sorted, grouped, paginated list of the caller's journal. Distinguishes from single-entry retrieval tools like `optionality_get_journal` and from reporting tools like `optionality_get_leaderboard`.

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?

Implies usage for listing journal entries, but does not explicitly compare with sibling tools (e.g., `get_journal`, `get_my_rank`). No when-not-to-use or alternative guidance, leaving the agent to infer.

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