Skip to main content
Glama

optionality-mcp

by io.github.lonniev

optionality_send_patron_dm

Sign and publish a Nostr DM as the patron, using the escrowed nsec.

The patron's escrowed nsec is loaded, decrypted in-process, used to sign a kind-4 NIP-04 DM + a kind-1059 NIP-17 gift wrap, broadcast via the operator's relay pool, then the plaintext drops out of scope. The DM's pubkey is the patron's own — recipients see it as authored by the patron, not relayed.

Returns {"success": True, "sender_npub", "target_npub"} on the happy path; {"success": False, "error"} on validation or send failure.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
npubNoRequired. Your Nostr public key (npub1...) for credit billing.
messageYes
dpop_tokenNo
target_npubYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
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 details the process of loading, decrypting, signing two kind of events, broadcasting, and dropping plaintext. It also clarifies that the sender appears as the patron. This covers core behavior well, though it omits rate limits or authentication details.

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 three paragraphs and fairly concise. It front-loads the main purpose and each sentence adds value. Minor improvement could be made by structuring the return format more clearly.

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 explains return values (success and failure). It covers the Nostr DM process in detail, including the gift wrap. However, it assumes the existence of an escrowed nsec without stating that as a prerequisite, and does not list all possible error conditions.

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 only 25% (only npub has a description). The description mentions 'target_npub' and 'message' in context but does not explain their formats or constraints. This adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 verb 'Sign and publish' and the resource 'Nostr DM as the patron, using the escrowed nsec.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on sending a DM with the patron's identity, which is unique among the listed tools.

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?

The description explains the process but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites or when not to use it. Since no sibling tool performs a similar function, the context is implied but not explicitly stated.

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