tollbooth-sample

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 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.

Changed2 schema fields changedJul 24, 2026

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"
+}

First observedJul 16, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the entire burden and discharges it: it flags the human-in-the-loop nature, warns that receive_npub_proof destructively drains the relay mailbox, explains the dpop_token is a matching nonce that authorizes nothing, and documents the expiry/refresh lifecycle. This is far more than a restatement of the operation.

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?

Front-loads the routing distinction, then the human-in-the-loop instruction, then returns, then lifecycle, using bold headers for scannability. Slightly long and mildly repetitive in the wait/do-not-poll instructions, but every section carries distinct, actionable content.

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 covers the flow's trigger, the required stop-and-wait behavior, the return value's nature, and the full expiry lifecycle. Even though an output schema exists (so return values need not be explained), the added lifecycle routing makes the definition self-sufficient for correct invocation.

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 the schema already documents reason, verify_at, and patron_npub in detail. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or constraints beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies even though the underlying schema is unusually informative.

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 and resource (request npub ownership proof from a patron via Nostr DM) and explicitly carves out the sibling it is not: 'it does NOT deliver any service secret. To hand an operator its API keys... use request_credential_channel instead.' An agent can route correctly between the two flows 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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('use it when a call returns proof_required'), an explicit exclusion (credential delivery belongs to request_credential_channel), and an explicit sequencing rule ('After calling this tool, STOP... Wait for the user to confirm they have replied before calling receive_npub_proof. Do NOT poll or retry'). The when/when-not/alternative triplet is fully covered.

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

All tollbooth-sample 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.