Skip to main content
Glama

tollbooth-sample

by io.github.lonniev

weather_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 demonstrated-proof-of-possession token that the calling application MUST remember and pass as the dpop_token parameter on every subsequent paid tool call. The MCP does not retain this value across restarts.

Lifecycle: The cached proof expires after the patron's chosen duration. 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
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
reasonNoOptional. 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_atNoOptional. 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_npubNoRequired. The patron's npub to request proof from.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / reason
      Added value: +{
+  "default": "",
+  "description": "Optional. A human-readable purpose for the request\n(\"I'm working on your request XYZ and need the Operator to do\nABC for you\"). Signed into the provenance attestation and shown\nin the DM, so the recipient sees *why* they are being asked —\nespecially useful when the signer is unknown to them.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / verify_at
      Added value: +{
+  "default": "",
+  "description": "Optional. A free-form statement of WHERE you (the\ninitiating agent) already showed this proof's one-time code to\nthe user — a URL, or \"your Claude.ai conversation\", \"the Grok\nsession\". The OAuth 2.0 Device Grant ``verification_uri``,\ngeneralized: the user approves only if the code in the DM matches\nthe one you displayed there, so an unsolicited request they've\nnever seen is refused. Signed into the attestation.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Despite no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: human-in-the-loop flow, destructive drain of relay mailbox, dpop_token return, and non-persistence across restarts.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, well-structured with sections, every sentence adds value. No wasted words.

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?

Covers purpose, usage, behavior, lifecycle, return value, and parameter semantics comprehensively. Nothing missing for a tool with this complexity, no annotations, and an output schema.

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% (baseline 3), but the description adds significant context: 'reason' shown in DM, 'verify_at' one-time code matching, and 'patron_npub' required nature.

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 it requests npub ownership proof via Nostr DM, and distinguishes from sibling tool 'request_credential_channel' by explicitly stating what it does NOT do.

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?

Explicitly says when to use (when a call returns proof_required), when not to (not for delivering service secrets), and provides alternatives ('request_credential_channel'). Includes lifecycle guidance.

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

All tollbooth-sample 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 have clearly distinct purposes with detailed descriptions, and the few similar pairs (e.g., check_balance vs check_authority_balance, account_statement vs account_statement_infographic) are well-differentiated by their descriptions. However, some overlapping concepts like forget_credentials vs delete_patron_credential/delete_operator_credential could still cause misselection without careful reading.

Naming Consistency2/5

All tools share the misleading 'weather_' prefix, which does not reflect their actual domain (billing, credentials, coupons, notarization). Naming patterns are inconsistent, mixing verb_noun (check_balance, list_coupons) with noun-ish names (account_statement, current, forecast) and varied verbs (get, list, check, request, receive, update, delete, forget, mint, redeem, etc.).

Tool Count1/5

With 52 tools, this is an extremely large surface for a sample server. Even though the domain is broad, this count far exceeds the typical well-scoped MCP server and creates unnecessary complexity for agents to navigate.

Completeness4/5

The tollbooth/billing domain is well-covered: credit purchasing, coupons, credentials, proofs, pricing models, notarization, and operator/patron status. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no single-coupon getter, no direct patron list), but core workflows have no dead ends. The weather aspect is thin with only three tools, but that seems intentional as an example paid service.

Resources