Skip to main content
Glama

optionality-mcp

by io.github.lonniev

optionality_restore_neon_schema

Re-run ensure_schema() on every NeonVault this operator uses.

Diagnostic / recovery tool for the case where the Neon HTTP SQL API is returning persistent 4xx errors and the operator suspects the schema isn't there or grants are wrong. Idempotent — uses CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS so a successful re-run is harmless.

Returns the per-step result. If any step raises, surfaces the Neon error message inline (0.31.0 reads the SQL error body that earlier wheels swallowed behind raise_for_status).

RESTRICTED to operator — requires proof (nsec-signed).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dpop_tokenNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and excels: it discloses idempotency (via CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS), return behavior (per-step result, inline error surfacing), and the restriction to operators. It also mentions version-specific behavior (0.31.0). No contradictions or omissions.

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 concise (6 lines) and well-structured: it starts with the action, then context, then behavior, then restrictions. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to scan.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers return values and error behavior. It addresses the tool's diagnostic scope and restrictions. The only missing piece is the parameter explanation, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a simple recovery tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, but the description does not mention the 'dpop_token' parameter at all. The parameter likely represents operator proof, yet no explanation is given. The description should clarify its role, especially given the 'requires proof' mention in the restrictions.

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 re-runs ensure_schema() on every NeonVault for schema recovery. It uses specific verbs ('Re-run') and resources ('NeonVault', 'ensure_schema()'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that are unrelated (e.g., account statements, coupons). The purpose is unmistakable.

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 explicitly defines when to use this tool: when the Neon HTTP SQL API returns persistent 4xx errors and schema/grants are suspected. It also notes the tool is restricted to operators with signed proof. It does not list alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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