tollbooth-authority-newengland

authority_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 24, 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

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral responsibility, and it delivers: it discloses the fee, public visibility, normal maintainer triage, lack of verification, npub-based author attribution, output on success, and the not-configured/no-charge failure mode. This is unusually transparent.

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 longer than minimal, but each section earns its place: use-case framing, behavioral caveats, cost, publicity, and return behavior. A little redundancy exists between 'author of record is your npub' and 'no npub / no proof, no issue,' but overall it is well organized and front-loaded.

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?

The description is complete for a complex write action: it explains prerequisites, cost, attribution, public exposure, unverified handling, success return values, and the not-configured case. Combined with a 100%-covered input schema and an output schema, 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 coverage is 100% and the schema itself provides rich descriptions for npub, dpop_token, title, body, and tool_name. The description reinforces npub's role as author of record but does not add substantial meaning beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline of 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 opens with a specific action ('File a field report... as a GitHub issue on the operator's repo') and clearly targets tool metadata/response problems. It instantly distinguishes this tool from the many authority_* siblings, none of which file field reports.

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 gives a clear trigger condition: use this when a tool's metadata or response is wrong or confusing. It also explains the no-npub/no-issue requirement and the not-configured fallback, though it does not explicitly name any alternative tool to use instead.

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

All tollbooth-authority-newengland 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.