personalbrain-mcp

brain_request_npub_proof

Request npub ownership proof from a patron via Nostr DM.

This is the npub-OWNERSHIP-PROOF flow — use it when a call returns proof_required. It proves the caller controls an npub; it does NOT deliver any service secret. To hand an operator its API keys or OAuth secrets, use request_credential_channel instead.

Sends a challenge DM that the patron must sign and reply to using their Nostr client. This is a human-in-the-loop flow.

After calling this tool, STOP and tell the user to check their Nostr client and reply to the challenge. Wait for the user to confirm they have replied before calling receive_npub_proof. Do NOT poll or retry — each receive_npub_proof call destructively drains the relay mailbox.

Returns a dpop_token — the one-time challenge nonce shown in the DM. Pass it to receive_npub_proof to collect the reply. It is a matching token, not a credential: on its own it authorizes nothing.

Lifecycle: receive_npub_proof returns the proof grant, which expires after the duration the patron named in their reply. When it expires, call request_npub_proof again for a fresh challenge, then wait for the user, then call receive_npub_proof.

Free.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`reason`	No	Optional. A human-readable purpose for the request ("I'm working on your request XYZ and need the Operator to do ABC for you"). Signed into the provenance attestation and shown in the DM, so the recipient sees why they are being asked — especially useful when the signer is unknown to them.
`verify_at`	No	Optional. A free-form statement of WHERE you (the initiating agent) already showed this proof's one-time code to the user — a URL, or "your Claude.ai conversation", "the Grok session". The OAuth 2.0 Device Grant ``verification_uri``, generalized: the user approves only if the code in the DM matches the one you displayed there, so an unsolicited request they've never seen is refused. Signed into the attestation.
`patron_npub`	No	Required. The patron's npub to request proof from.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedJul 24, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / reason

Added value: +{
+  "default": "",
+  "description": "Optional. A human-readable purpose for the request\n(\"I'm working on your request XYZ and need the Operator to do\nABC for you\"). Signed into the provenance attestation and shown\nin the DM, so the recipient sees *why* they are being asked —\nespecially useful when the signer is unknown to them.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / verify_at

Added value: +{
+  "default": "",
+  "description": "Optional. A free-form statement of WHERE you (the\ninitiating agent) already showed this proof's one-time code to\nthe user — a URL, or \"your Claude.ai conversation\", \"the Grok\nsession\". The OAuth 2.0 Device Grant ``verification_uri``,\ngeneralized: the user approves only if the code in the DM matches\nthe one you displayed there, so an unsolicited request they've\nnever seen is refused. Signed into the attestation.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedJul 16, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and meets it: it discloses the human-in-the-loop nature, the destructive side effect of the downstream receive_npub_proof call ('destructively drains the relay mailbox'), what the returned dpop_token is and is not ('a matching token, not a credential: on its own it authorizes nothing'), and expiry/lifecycle behavior.

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?

Bold section headers keep it scannable and the most decision-relevant facts (what it is, when to use it, that it is human-in-the-loop) are front-loaded. It runs long with some restatement of the identical lifecycle, but nearly every line carries behavioral content rather than filler.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still closes the loop by explaining the returned dpop_token's role and the expiry-then-re-request lifecycle. Combined with the when-to-use trigger and the mandated stop-wait-collect sequence, nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 100%, so all three parameters are already fully documented in-schema (including reason and verify_at). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, which is the correct baseline-3 case when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Request npub ownership proof from a patron via Nostr DM') and explicitly scopes it against the sibling flow it is NOT: 'it does NOT deliver any service secret. To hand an operator its API keys or OAuth secrets, use request_credential_channel instead.' An agent can distinguish this from the credential-request and receive_* siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Gives the exact trigger ('use it when a call returns proof_required'), names the alternative for the adjacent use case, and prescribes the full operator sequence: call this, STOP, tell the user to reply, wait for confirmation, then call receive_npub_proof. It even states an exclusion ('Do NOT poll or retry').

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

All personalbrain-mcp tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Context All Your Agents Can ShareAgents share what they learn, hand off work, and hold it when you switch models. Start with 5 GB free.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.