Skip to main content
Glama

personalbrain-mcp

by io.github.lonniev

brain_get_patron_onboarding_status

Report a patron's credential readiness for this operator.

For set-once services (eXcalibur, TheBrain), shows which patron secrets are configured and which are missing. For dynamic/OAuth2 services (Schwab), reports that no patron credentials are needed. Free. Proof of npub ownership is required because credential presence is sensitive information about the patron's setup.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dpop_tokenYesA kind-27235 Nostr event signed by patron_npub for this tool.
patron_npubYesThe patron's Nostr public key (npub1...).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It discloses that the tool is free, requires proof of npub ownership (D PoP token), and explains why (credential presence is sensitive). It implies read-only behavior via 'Report' and describes how different service types are handled. It could mention error conditions or side effects, but the provided details are strong.

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 three sentences with no waste. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds necessary context about service types, cost, and authorization. Every sentence earns its place, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return format doesn't need to be in the description. The description covers purpose, service-specific behavior, cost, and auth requirements, making it fairly complete for a read-only status tool. It doesn't mention failure scenarios or edge cases, but given the simplicity and output schema, the information provided is sufficient.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by explaining why dpop_token is required ('Proof of npub ownership is required') and why the data is sensitive, which gives the agent deeper understanding of the parameters beyond their schema definitions. This justifies a score above baseline.

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's purpose: 'Report a patron's credential readiness for this operator.' It uses a specific verb ('Report') and names a distinct resource (patron credential readiness), and it differentiates from sibling tools by specifying patron-level vs. operator-level status and service-specific behavior (set-once vs. OAuth2).

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: to report credential readiness for a patron, with distinctions between service types. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is strong enough to guide an agent. A small gap is the lack of explicit comparison to similar tools like brain_get_operator_onboarding_status.

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