Skip to main content
Glama

optionality-mcp

by io.github.lonniev

optionality_update_operator_credential

Add or update a single operator secret field.

Merges into the operator's stored credentials without touching the others — the field-level counterpart to re-delivering the whole bundle over Secure Courier. Use it to rotate one secret (a reissued btcpay_api_key, say) without restating the six you did not change, where any field omitted from a courier reply is destroyed.

The value is never echoed back. RESTRICTED to the operator — requires proof (nsec-signed kind-27235 or a cached dpop_token phrase); patron proofs are rejected.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fieldYesThe operator credential field to set. Must be declared in the operator's credential template.
valueYesThe value to store.
dpop_tokenYesOperator proof for this tool.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses that the value is never echoed back, that merging does not touch other fields, and that omitted fields in a courier reply are destroyed. It also specifies the required proof types (nsec-signed kind-27235 or cached dpop_token phrase) and rejects patron proofs. This is comprehensive and exceeds typical tool descriptions.

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 organized into three tight paragraphs: purpose, usage context, and behavioral/security constraints. Every sentence contributes unique value, with no redundant or filler content. The formatting with line breaks and code markup enhances readability.

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?

The tool has an output schema (not shown) and all parameters are documented. The description explains the operation, the merge semantics, the security model, and the precise use case. It does not discuss return values or error handling, but the output schema covers that. Given the tool's complexity, this is a complete and self-sufficient description.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds an example field (btcpay_api_key) but does not provide any additional type, format, or constraint information beyond what the schema already states. Therefore, it is adequate but not exceptional.

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 opens with 'Add or update a single operator secret field,' a specific verb+resource that clearly defines the operation. It further distinguishes itself as 'the field-level counterpart to re-delivering the whole bundle over Secure Courier,' differentiating it from related sibling tools like bundle delivery or patron credential updates.

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?

It explicitly instructs when to use: 'Use it to rotate one secret (a reissued btcpay_api_key, say) without restating the six you did not change,' and contrasts with the alternative of re-delivering the whole bundle. It also states the restriction to the operator and rejection of patron proofs, implying patron-facing tools are separate. However, it does not name sibling tools explicitly, so it earns a 4.

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