schwab-mcp

schwab_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

Name	Required	Description	Default
`dpop_token`	No	Required. The dpop_token returned by request_npub_proof.
`patron_npub`	No	Required. The patron's npub to receive proof from.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedJul 16, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It details deterministic one-shot retrieval, draining only the pinned relay, deletion of mismatched DMs, consequences of premature calls, and token storage/handling. No contradictions exist.

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 well-structured with clear paragraphs, and nearly every sentence adds unique value. Minor redundancy exists (e.g., repeated emphasis on not polling), but it remains efficient given the complexity.

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 tool's complexity (part of a proof flow with relays, DMs, and tokens), the description covers all necessary aspects: when to call, how it works, side effects, return value, and downstream usage. The presence of an output schema further reduces burden, yet the description is still comprehensive.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the provenance of dpop_token (from request_npub_proof) and the role of patron_npub, providing flow context beyond the schema descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

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 and completing the npub-OWNERSHIP-PROOF flow. It is specific and distinct from the credential-delivery counterpart 'receive_credentials', though it does not explicitly differentiate from all sibling tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit guidance: 'Call this only after the user confirms they have replied' and warns against polling, looping, or retrying. It also mentions the complementary tool 'receive_credentials', but could be more precise about when not to use this tool versus others in the flow.

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

All schwab-mcp tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.