Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
lightning-mcp

lightning-mcp

by jeletor
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

Check Agent Trust Score (ai.wot)

check_trust

Look up the ai.wot Web of Trust score for a Nostr pubkey, returning its 0-100 trust score, attestation count, and attester details.

Instructions

Look up the ai.wot (Web of Trust) trust score for a Nostr pubkey. Returns trust score (0-100), attestation count, and attester info.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "pubkey": "<pubkey>"
    },
    "name": "check_trust"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pubkeyYesNostr public key (hex) to look up

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the return contents (score 0-100, attestation count, attester info), but says nothing about unknown-pubkey behavior, auth requirements, rate limits, or error handling for a network lookup.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. Every clause earns its place by stating the resource and the returned data.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned fields, which is the key missing piece an agent needs. Gaps remain around failure modes and the shape of 'attester info', but for a one-parameter read lookup it is largely sufficient.

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 single required parameter is documented in the schema as a hex Nostr public key. The description only restates that it targets a Nostr pubkey, adding no format or encoding detail beyond the schema baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (look up) and resource (ai.wot Web of Trust trust score for a Nostr pubkey), which clearly sets it apart from the lightning/payment siblings. It does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling, but the purpose is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The only context is the implied need to consult trust scores, leaving the agent to infer the scenario.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools