Skip to main content
Glama

roastify-mcp

by io.github.lonniev

roastify_request_credential_channel

Open a Secure Courier channel for credential delivery.

This is the CREDENTIAL-DELIVERY flow — use it to hand over a service secret (API keys, tokens). To merely prove you control an npub (the usual answer to a proof_required error), use request_npub_proof instead. Note: dynamic/OAuth2 services (e.g. Schwab) need NO couriered secret — check service_status first.

Sends a welcome DM with a credential template. The recipient must read the DM in their Nostr client, fill in the fields, and reply manually. This is a human-in-the-loop flow.

After calling this tool, STOP and tell the user what to do. Wait for the user to confirm they have replied before calling receive_credentials. Do NOT poll or retry — each receive_credentials call destructively drains the relay mailbox.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
serviceNoRequired. The credential service name (e.g., from get_operator_onboarding_status or get_patron_onboarding_status).
sender_npubNoRequired. The npub to send the template to.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and meets it: this is a human-in-the-loop flow, the recipient must manually reply, the agent must stop and instruct the user, and receive_credentials destructively drains the relay mailbox. The warning about dynamic services avoids unnecessary calls.

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?

Although the description is longer than average, every sentence carries a distinct instruction, comparison, or warning. The formatting with emphasis and short paragraphs makes it scannable, and there is no 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?

For a side-effecting, human-in-the-loop tool with no annotations, the description covers alternatives, service-type preconditions, the required post-call workflow, and the destructive consequence of the follow-up tool. An output schema exists, so the lack of return-value detail is acceptable.

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 the schema already documents both parameters fully. The description adds context by framing the tool as secret delivery and confirming sender_npub is the recipient, but it does not meaningfully go beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action: 'Open a Secure Courier channel' for credential delivery, and clarifies it is for handing over service secrets (API keys, tokens). It explicitly contrasts with request_npub_proof, so an agent can distinguish this tool from close siblings. It also makes the mechanism concrete by saying it sends a welcome DM.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance (credential-delivery flow, service secrets) and when-not-to-use guidance (npub control proof should use request_npub_proof; dynamic/OAuth2 services need no couriered secret and should check service_status first). It also gives clear post-call workflow instructions: stop, tell the user, wait for confirmation, and do not poll.

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

All roastify-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

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target clearly distinct resources—patron balances vs. operator Authority balances, design text vs. full design fetches, operator vs. patron credentials—and the verbose descriptions carefully separate request/receive flows. A few pairs could still be confused at a glance, such as service_status/session_status, forget_coupon/delete_coupon, and get_design_text/fetch_design.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tools share the roastify_ snake_case prefix and mostly follow a verb_noun pattern like list_, get_, update_, delete_, and create. However, several noun-only names (service_status, session_status, account_statement, oracle_about) and the inconsistent forget_ vs. delete_ distinction for credential/coupon removal keep it from being fully consistent.

Tool Count1/5

69 tools is an extreme count for a single MCP surface and far exceeds the 25+ threshold. Even though the tools span many subdomains—design, payments, coupons, credentials, pricing, notarization, oracle—the sheer number will be heavy on agent context and selection accuracy.

Completeness3/5

Core workflows are largely covered: design storage/editing, coupon lifecycle, credential vaults, credit purchasing, pricing models, notarization, and the oracle all have reasonable read/write surfaces. However, session_status explicitly tells not_registered operators to call register_operator, which does not exist in the tool set, and design editing lacks any delete-element operation, leaving notable dead ends.

Resources