Escape hatch: run an arbitrary NIP-01 filter (kinds/authors/ids/tags/since/until/limit). Use the typed tools above when they fit. Returns raw signed events.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ids | No | ||
| tags | No | Tag filters, e.g. {"t":["vn_hanoi"],"g":["w3gv"]}. Keys are single tag letters. | |
| kinds | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| since | No | ||
| until | No | ||
| relays | No | Override the relay set for this call (ws/wss URLs, max 10). Defaults to the server relays. | |
| authors | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It mentions 'escape hatch' implying raw, low-level access, and specifies return of raw signed events. However, it does not disclose limitations like rate limits, performance implications, or error handling, which would be expected for a low-level tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the key concept 'escape hatch', and every word adds value. There is no redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (8 params, nested objects, no output schema), the description is too minimal. It does not explain the relay override, tag format, or the structure of returned events, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 25%, and the description does not add parameter-level details beyond listing filter fields in the summary. For a tool with 8 parameters including complex objects (tags, relays), the description provides insufficient semantic guidance.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool runs arbitrary NIP-01 filters and returns raw signed events. The phrase 'escape hatch' distinguishes it from sibling typed tools, which are likely more restrictive.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly advises to use typed tools when they fit, providing clear context for when not to use this tool. However, it does not elaborate on when exactly to use this escape hatch, e.g., for advanced queries or debugging.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.