Skip to main content
Glama

personalbrain-mcp

by io.github.lonniev

brain_receive_credentials

Pick up credentials from the Secure Courier.

Completes the CREDENTIAL-DELIVERY flow (the ownership-proof counterpart is receive_npub_proof).

Call this only after the user confirms they have replied. Deterministic, one-shot retrieval: name the response you want with (sender_npub, service, dpop_token) and the tool drains ONLY the rendezvous relay that channel was pinned to. Every popped DM with the wrong session phrase is deleted and its sender is NACK'd; the first DM with the matching phrase is accepted (ACK'd) and the scan stops. If none match, the queue is drained and a courier_not_found result is returned. Do NOT poll, loop, or retry.

If a credential_card (ncred1...) is provided, it is redeemed directly without any relay access (dpop_token not required for that path). On success, the payment processor client is reinitialized from the new credentials — no server restart needed.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
serviceNoRequired. The credential service name (must match the service used in request_credential_channel).
dpop_tokenNoRequired. The session phrase returned by request_credential_channel for this exact channel.
sender_npubNoRequired. The npub that sent the credentials.
credential_cardNoOptional. An ncred1... card to redeem directly (bypasses the relay drain; dpop_token not needed).

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, the description fully carries the behavioral burden. It discloses important traits: drains only the rendezvous relay, deletes wrong DMs and NACKs senders, accepts first matching DM and stops, returns courier_not_found if no match, and explains the credential_card bypass behavior. This is comprehensive and honest about side effects.

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 moderately long but every sentence carries essential information. It is structured into paragraphs, front-loads the purpose, and avoids filler. The instructions (e.g., do not poll) are direct and actionable, making it efficient for an AI to parse.

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 the complexity (4 params, two operational paths), the description is remarkably complete. It covers the flow, edge cases (no match), side effects (reinitialization), and explicitly states what happens in the credential_card path. An output schema exists, so return values are defined, and the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds semantic nuance beyond the schema: it explains that sender_npub, service, and dpop_token identify the response, and clarifies that dpop_token is not required for the credential_card path. This conditional logic is not fully evident from the schema, so the description adds real value.

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 function: 'Pick up credentials from the Secure Courier' and defines it as completing the CREDENTIAL-DELIVERY flow. It also distinguishes from the sibling tool by explicitly referencing receive_npub_proof as the ownership-proof counterpart, so an agent knows exactly what this tool does and how it differs.

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?

It provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this only after the user confirms they have replied.' It also explains the deterministic one-shot nature and warns 'Do NOT poll, loop, or retry,' and names the alternative tool (receive_npub_proof), giving clear context for choosing this over siblings.

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