Skip to main content
Glama

optionality-mcp

by io.github.lonniev

optionality_publish_nostr_profile

Publish a CLIENT-SIGNED kind-0 profile to relays for an npub.

The wheel never holds a patron nsec. The frontend signs the kind-0 metadata event with the patron's session key or a NIP-07 extension and passes the signed event (JSON) here; the wheel verifies the signature matches the npub, then relays it to public relays. The signature is the authorization — no proof token, no key custody. Free.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
npubNoThe patron's Nostr public key the event must be signed by.
signed_eventNoA JSON-encoded, client-signed kind-0 event.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
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 key behaviors: no key custody, signature verification against npub, relaying to public relays, and that it is free. This exceeds minimal expectations by explaining the security model and authorization method.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, followed by security, process, and cost. Each sentence is necessary and concise, with no redundant or vague language.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers input requirements and behavior well but omits output expectations (e.g., success confirmation). Since an output schema exists (per context signals), the gap is partially mitigated, but the description could still mention what the tool returns.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by explaining the relationship between npub and signed_event: the wheel verifies the signature matches the npub. This clarifies why npub is needed beyond the schema description and reinforces the flow.

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 it publishes a client-signed kind-0 profile to relays for an npub, using a specific verb ('Publish') and resource ('kind-0 profile'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'optionality_get_nostr_profile' which is read-only.

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 explains when to use this tool: when a client-signed kind-0 event is available and the wheel should relay it. It implicitly contrasts with other profile tools by emphasizing 'client-signed' and that the wheel never holds the nsec, guiding the agent away from other signing or key-custody tools.

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