Skip to main content
Glama

personalbrain-mcp

by io.github.lonniev

brain_receive_npub_proof

Receive npub ownership confirmation from a patron.

Completes the npub-OWNERSHIP-PROOF flow (the credential-delivery counterpart is receive_credentials).

Call this only after the user confirms they have replied. Deterministic, one-shot retrieval: name the response with (patron_npub, dpop_token) — the dpop_token being the value returned by request_npub_proof. The tool drains ONLY the pinned rendezvous relay that challenge was published on, stopping at the DM whose phrase matches. Mismatched DMs are deleted and NACK'd (without revealing the expected phrase). If called before the user replies, their message will never be found. Do NOT poll, loop, or retry.

The signed DM itself proves npub ownership (the patron's nsec signed it). On success, returns the dpop_token — the same token. The calling application MUST remember it and pass it as the dpop_token parameter on every subsequent paid tool call. The proof (a hash of the token) is stored in the vault keyed by that hash — the MCP never stores the raw token itself. Free.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dpop_tokenNoRequired. The dpop_token returned by request_npub_proof.
patron_npubNoRequired. The patron's npub to receive proof from.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully bears the transparency burden. It discloses destructive behavior (mismatched DMs deleted and NACK'd), one-shot deterministic retrieval, relay draining, the proof mechanism via signed DM, and sensitive token storage details (only hashed, never raw). This is comprehensive behavioral disclosure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long but structured and information-dense. It front-loads the core purpose, then uses bolded warnings and clear paragraphs for usage constraints, behavior, and token handling. Minor redundancy exists (e.g., 'the same token' and the trailing 'Free.'), but the length is largely justified by the tool's complexity and security sensitivity.

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?

This is a complex, one-shot, destructive, credential-bearing flow, and the description covers all critical operational aspects: timing constraints, relay scoping, DM deletion/NACK behavior, ownership proof, token handling, and cost. The presence of an output schema means return-value formatting need not be described. The description is complete enough for an agent to safely and correctly invoke the tool.

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?

The input schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to repeat them. It adds meaningful context by explaining that dpop_token is the value returned by request_npub_proof, how the parameters pair together, and the token's critical reuse expectation on subsequent paid calls.

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: receiving npub ownership confirmation from a patron. It names the specific flow (npub-OWNERSHIP-PROOF), identifies receive_credentials as the counterpart, and contextualizes its role relative to request_npub_proof, distinguishing it from sibling receive tools.

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 usage timing ('Call this only after the user confirms they have replied'), explicit prohibitions ('Do NOT poll, loop, or retry'), and differentiates from the alternative tool receive_credentials. This gives an agent clear guidance on when and how to invoke the tool.

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