Skip to main content
Glama

optionality-mcp

by io.github.lonniev

optionality_receive_npub_proof

Receive npub ownership confirmation from a patron.

Completes the npub-OWNERSHIP-PROOF flow (the credential-delivery counterpart is receive_credentials).

Call this only after the user confirms they have replied. Deterministic, one-shot retrieval: name the response with (patron_npub, dpop_token) — the dpop_token being the value returned by request_npub_proof. The tool drains ONLY the pinned rendezvous relay that challenge was published on, stopping at the DM whose phrase matches. Mismatched DMs are deleted and NACK'd (without revealing the expected phrase). If called before the user replies, their message will never be found. Do NOT poll, loop, or retry.

The signed DM itself proves npub ownership (the patron's nsec signed it). On success, returns the dpop_token — the same token. The calling application MUST remember it and pass it as the dpop_token parameter on every subsequent paid tool call. The proof (a hash of the token) is stored in the vault keyed by that hash — the MCP never stores the raw token itself. Free.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dpop_tokenNoRequired. The dpop_token returned by request_npub_proof.
patron_npubNoRequired. The patron's npub to receive proof from.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully covers behavior: drains only pinned relay, stops at matching DM, deletes mismatched DMs without revealing expected phrase, and explains what happens if called too early. Also details proof storage (hash only) and the signed DM proving ownership.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Well-structured with clear paragraphs and bullet-like points. Front-loaded with purpose. Could be slightly more concise, but every sentence adds value and no extraneous content.

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?

Given output schema exists, return value explanation is sufficient (dpop_token on success). Covers edge cases (user hasn't replied, mismatched DMs) and explains the flow thoroughly.

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 description adds context: dpop_token is from request_npub_proof, patron_npub is the patron's npub, and both are described as required. Minor inconsistency with schema not marking them required, but overall meaning is enhanced.

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 receives npub ownership confirmation from a patron and completes the npub-OWNERSHIP-PROOF flow. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like optionality_request_npub_proof and optionality_receive_credentials.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly says 'Call this only after the user confirms they have replied.' and warns against polling/looping. Provides deterministic one-shot retrieval instructions and marks the dpop_token for later use. Differentiates from receive_credentials.

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