Skip to main content
Glama

personalbrain-mcp

by io.github.lonniev

brain_create_thought

Create a new thought with optional type, color, label, and parent link. Requires npub for credit billing.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindNoKind of thought to create — 1=Normal (default) or 2=Type. Tags and Events are NOT created via kind (the API rejects those values); model them as Normal thoughts carrying the appropriate type_id from get_types (e.g. the "Event" type).
nameYesThe name of the thought
npubNoRequired. Your Nostr public key (npub1...) for credit billing.
labelNoOptional label for the thought
ac_typeNoAccess type (0=Public, 1=Private)
type_idNoID of the thought type to assign
brain_idNoThe ID of the brain (uses active brain if not specified)
relationNoRelation type if linking (1=Child, 2=Parent, 3=Jump, 4=Sibling)
dpop_tokenNo
background_colorNoBackground color in hex format (e.g., "#0000ff")
foreground_colorNoForeground color in hex format (e.g., "#ff0000")
source_thought_idNoID of the source thought to link from

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: 'Requires npub for credit billing,' indicating a paid operation. However, it does not mention other behaviors such as kind restrictions (Tags/Events rejected) or that it creates a node in the active brain.

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?

Two concise sentences with the action front-loaded. No filler or redundant information. Every word earns its place.

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 rich schema (92% coverage) and existence of an output schema, the description provides a sufficient high-level overview of the tool. It could mention the kind restriction or linking details, but those are covered by the schema; overall it is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke 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 description coverage is high (92%), so baseline is 3. The description summarizes some parameters ('optional type, color, label, and parent link') and highlights the required npub, but these details are already present in the schema. It adds little new semantic meaning 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 action 'Create' and the resource 'a new thought', and lists optional attributes (type, color, label, parent link). This distinguishes it from siblings like brain_create_link (creates links) and brain_update_thought (updates existing thoughts).

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 implies usage via the verb 'Create' and resource 'thought', but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like brain_create_link or brain_morph_thought. No exclusions or alternative guidance are provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All personalbrain-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

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools have overlapping purposes. For example, `brain_request_credential_channel` and `brain_request_patron_credentials` serve similar roles, and `brain_receive_credentials`, `brain_receive_npub_proof`, and `brain_receive_patron_credentials` all handle receiving data from a courier flow. While descriptions help, the sheer number of tools (83) with similar-sounding purposes (check_ vs get_ vs request_ vs receive_ prefixes) makes it hard to quickly distinguish which tool to use.

Naming Consistency3/5

The tools mostly follow a `brain_verb_noun` pattern (e.g., `brain_create_thought`, `brain_delete_link`), which provides some consistency. However, there are inconsistencies with prefixes like `brain_oracle_` (e.g., `brain_oracle_about`, `brain_oracle_how_to_join`) which are more like static pages than actions. Additionally, 'check' and 'get' seem interchangeable (e.g., `brain_check_balance` vs `brain_get_thought`), and 'list' is used alongside 'get' in a way that sometimes means the same thing (e.g., `brain_list_brains` vs `brain_get_brain`).

Tool Count2/5

83 tools is an extremely large and unwieldy surface area. While the server aims to be a comprehensive 'operating system' for a specific ecosystem (DPYC/Nostr), this many tools will lead to agent confusion and high latency. Tools like `brain_oracle_about`, `brain_oracle_how_to_join`, and `brain_oracle_network_advisory` could easily be combined into a single tool or served as function parameters.

Completeness4/5

For its stated domain (managing a 'brain' with credits, payments, and Nostr integration), the tool set is remarkably complete. It covers CRUD operations, payment flows (purchase, check, restore), coupon management, credential handling, and even notarization. Minor gaps are hard to identify, though some flows feel overly complex (e.g., the multiple `request_`/`receive_` patterns could arguably be simplified). The high number of tools is a result of this extreme specialization.

Resources