Author the authoritative why for a capability.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| why | Yes | The authoritative, human-authored reason this capability exists. | |
| name | Yes | Capability name. | |
| npub | No | ||
| dpop_token | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It uses 'author' which implies a write operation, but does not disclose side effects, required permissions, or other behavioral traits. The lack of transparency is a significant gap.
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 overly terse—a single sentence that barely explains the tool. While concise, it sacrifices clarity and structure. Every sentence should earn its place; this one does not provide enough value.
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 tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and a large sibling context, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain the purpose of the 'why' parameter, the effect of authoring it, or how to use the tool effectively.
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 coverage is 50% (descriptions for 'why' and 'name' only). The tool description adds no additional parameter information. Parameters 'npub' and 'dpop_token' are undocumented beyond defaults. The description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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?
Description states the tool authors the 'authoritative why' for a capability, but the phrasing is vague and does not differentiate from similar tools like cypher_suggest_capability_why or cypher_explain_capability. The verb 'author' implies writing, but the resource and action are unclear without context.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes cypher_suggest_capability_why and cypher_explain_capability, which might be related, but the description offers no comparison or usage context.
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.
The set is heavily clustered: audit_why_exists, explain_capability, suggest_capability_why, and authorize_capability_why all answer the same basic 'why does this capability exist?' question and differ mainly in provenance/authority. Many status and provenance tools (adoption_status, session_status, service_status, issue_provenance, pr_provenance, symbol_provenance, service_provenance) also blur together without close reading.
The overwhelming majority of tools follow a predictable cypher_verb_noun pattern in snake_case, which provides strong naming consistency across a very large surface. Minor deviations such as cypher_oracle_about, cypher_oracle_how_to_join, cypher_which_service_handles, and cypher_what_realizes_capability are noticeable but do not break the overall pattern.
112 tools is an extreme count for a single MCP server, regardless of how well the clusters are named; it heavily burdens tool selection, context, and agent discovery. The set spans unrelated domains including payments, coupons, credentials, provenance, issues, patents, queries, pricing, and NOS transformations, which should be split into separate focused servers.
Many domain clusters have strong lifeycle coverage: COUPs have mint/list/update/delete/redeem, credentials have courier delivery/box status/update/delete/forget, and the named-query catalog has full CRUD plus published-tool management. Minor gaps exist—e.g., no generic list_services, no delete for capabilities, and no close/resolve action for issues—but most flows have no outright dead end.