Skip to main content
Glama

personalbrain-mcp

by io.github.lonniev

brain_delete_operator_credential

Remove a single operator secret field.

Deletes one key from the operator's encrypted credential blob without touching the others — the field-level counterpart to forget_credentials, which wipes the whole row. Use it to retire a leftover after an SDK cutover (a Prefect key after Modal, or a stored but untemplated orphan like anthropic_api_key) without taking the operator down for a full re-delivery.

Stored-but-untemplated fields are first-class: the delete is keyed on what is vaulted, not on what the current template declares. Idempotent — already-absent fields report removed: false without rewriting the vault. RESTRICTED to the operator — requires proof (nsec-signed kind-27235 or a cached dpop_token phrase); patron proofs are rejected. A deletion is as destructive as a write.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fieldYesThe operator credential field to remove (templated or not).
dpop_tokenYesOperator proof for this tool.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses idempotency ('already-absent fields report removed: false'), destructive nature ('as destructive as a write'), auth requirements ('requires proof ... patron proofs are rejected'), and that deletion is keyed on vaulted content. This covers all behavioral traits comprehensively.

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 well-structured with a front-loaded summary sentence followed by targeted expansions. Every sentence serves a purpose—idempotency, auth, use case, vs alternative—with no fluff. Length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 no annotations, the description covers everything: purpose, usage context, behavioral details, parameter semantics, auth, and output behavior (reporting 'removed: false'). It also references the sibling tool for contrast. For a destructive, auth-restricted tool, this is fully self-contained and complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% but descriptions are basic ('The operator credential field to remove'). The tool description adds significant value: for 'field' it clarifies that deletion keys on vaulted fields, not template-declared ones; for 'dpop_token' it specifies accepted formats ('nsec-signed kind-27235 or a cached dpop_token phrase'). This goes well 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 explicitly states 'Remove a single operator secret field' and elaborates with 'Deletes one key from the operator's encrypted credential blob without touching the others.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from its sibling 'forget_credentials' by specifying field-level vs whole-row operation. The verb 'remove' and resource 'operator secret field' are precise.

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: 'Use it to retire a leftover after an SDK cutover ... without taking the operator down for a full re-delivery.' It contrasts with the alternative 'forget_credentials' (whole-row wipe) and implies when not to use (if you want to delete all fields). This meets the 'explicit when/when-not/alternatives' threshold.

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