schwab-mcp

schwab_report_issue

File a field report about this service as a GitHub issue on the operator's repo.

Found a tool's metadata or response wrong or confusing? Report it where the tool lives. The author of record is your npub — no npub / no proof, no issue — and it is stamped into the issue so the report is attributed to you, not the operator. Costs a small fee (a free write to an issue tracker would be abused). The report is PUBLIC and goes to the maintainers' normal triage; nothing is verified here.

Returns the filed issue's repo, number, and url. If this operator has not enabled field reports, returns an "issue reporting not configured" situation and you are not charged.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`body`	Yes	The details — which tool, what was wrong, what you expected.
`npub`	Yes	Your Nostr public key (npub1...); the report's author of record.
`title`	Yes	One-line summary of the problem.
`tool_name`	No	Optional: the specific tool the report is about (e.g. "schwab_get_option_chain").
`dpop_token`	Yes	Raw JSON of a kind-27235 Nostr event signed by npub — not base64, not NIP-98 'Authorization: Nostr <b64>' framing. Its `u` tag must hold THIS tool's exact name (from tools/list), not the endpoint URL; content:"", created_at within 60s of now, and a random `nonce` tag recommended. Or a cached dpop_token phrase.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedJul 20, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / dpop_token / description

Previous value: -"A kind-27235 Nostr event signed by npub for this tool."New value: +"Raw JSON of a kind-27235 Nostr event signed by npub —\nnot base64, not NIP-98 'Authorization: Nostr <b64>' framing. Its\n`u` tag must hold THIS tool's exact name (from tools/list), not\nthe endpoint URL; content:\"\", created_at within 60s of now, and a\nrandom `nonce` tag recommended. Or a cached dpop_token phrase."

AddedJul 19, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It discloses behavioral traits: costs a fee, report is public and stamped with npub, attribution to user not operator, and error handling if not configured. It also details the dpop_token format and constraints.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is moderately lengthy but front-loads the main purpose. Some redundancy exists (e.g., explaining dpop_token in detail could be condensed), but it remains readable and informative.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 5 parameters (4 required), output schema exists, and description covers outputs (repo, number, url) and error case. It also explains the fee and attribution. Completeness is high, though slightly verbose.

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 parameters are documented. The description adds context for dpop_token (raw JSON, constraints) but does not significantly augment other parameters beyond schema defaults. 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?

The description clearly states that the tool files a field report as a GitHub issue on the operator's repo. It specifies the action (file a report) and resource (GitHub issue on operator's repo), distinguishing it from sibling tools that deal with financial operations.

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 explains when to use the tool (found a tool's metadata or response wrong/confusing), prerequisites (npub, dpop_token), costs, and what happens if reporting is not configured. It lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance but is otherwise clear.

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.