roastify-mcp

Roastify Request Npub Proof

roastify_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.

First observedSep 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

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 burden and does so richly: it flags human-in-the-loop, warns that receive_npub_proof destructively drains the relay mailbox, explains the returned dpop_token is a matching nonce authorizing nothing, and describes the expiry/renewal lifecycle. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs.

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?

Well front-loaded and organized with bold labels (Returns, Lifecycle) so scan-ability is high, and the routing sentence comes first. It is on the long side, but nearly every sentence carries distinct operational value; only minor tightening is possible.

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?

Despite an output schema being present, the description still clarifies the key return value's nature (dpop_token is a matching token, not a credential) and the full multi-step lifecycle, which is the information an agent most needs to avoid mis-calling. Nothing critical 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 reason and verify_at (including their attestation-signing semantics) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that. Baseline 3 applies 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 via Nostr DM') and immediately distinguishes the flow from the sibling credential flow: 'it does NOT deliver any service secret. To hand an operator its API keys... use request_credential_channel instead.' An agent can route correctly without opening either 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?

Explicit trigger ('use it when a call returns proof_required'), explicit exclusion (not a credential delivery flow), and explicit process sequencing: call this, STOP, tell the user, wait for confirmation, then call receive_npub_proof, do NOT poll or retry. Covers when, when-not, and alternatives.

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

All roastify-mcp tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.