Skip to main content
Glama

optionality-mcp

by io.github.lonniev

optionality_request_credential_channel

Open a Secure Courier channel for credential delivery.

This is the CREDENTIAL-DELIVERY flow — use it to hand over a service secret (API keys, tokens). To merely prove you control an npub (the usual answer to a proof_required error), use request_npub_proof instead. Note: dynamic/OAuth2 services (e.g. Schwab) need NO couriered secret — check service_status first.

Sends a welcome DM with a credential template. The recipient must read the DM in their Nostr client, fill in the fields, and reply manually. This is a human-in-the-loop flow.

After calling this tool, STOP and tell the user what to do. Wait for the user to confirm they have replied before calling receive_credentials. Do NOT poll or retry — each receive_credentials call destructively drains the relay mailbox.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
serviceNoRequired. The credential service name (e.g., from get_operator_onboarding_status or get_patron_onboarding_status).
sender_npubNoRequired. The npub to send the template to.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description explains the human-in-the-loop flow, that it sends a welcome DM, and the need to wait for manual reply. It also warns about receive_credentials' destructive behavior. However, it doesn't explicitly state side effects of this tool itself (e.g., creating a channel) but the detail is strong.

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?

The description is well-structured with clear sections: purpose, usage, process, instructions. It is relatively concise given the complexity, though some repetition (e.g., 'human-in-the-loop') is present. Front-loaded with key information.

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 the tool has an output schema (so return values don't need explanation), the description fully covers purpose, usage, behavioral nuances, and post-call steps. It references related tools and provides a complete understanding of how to use the tool correctly.

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 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description adds context about the flow (welcome DM, credential delivery) but does not significantly enhance parameter meaning beyond schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens a Secure Courier channel for credential delivery, explicitly distinguishing it from request_npub_proof for npub control. It also notes when not to use (dynamic/OAuth2 services). The purpose is specific and well-differentiated from siblings.

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?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use (credential delivery), when not (npub proof, OAuth2), and what to do after calling: stop, tell the user, wait for confirmation, avoid polling, and note destructive drain of receive_credentials. Excellent usage instructions.

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