Skip to main content
Glama

cypher-mcp

by io.github.lonniev

cypher_list_capabilities

List every capability for semantic intent-matching.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
npubNo
since_msNoEpoch-ms lower bound on change time; 0 (default) = any time.
dpop_tokenNo

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Added
  2. Removed
  3. Added
  4. Removed
  5. Added
  6. Removed
  7. Added
  8. Removed
  9. Added
  10. Removed
  11. Added
  12. Removed
  13. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / since_ms / default
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +0
  14. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / since_ms
      Added value: +{
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Epoch-ms lower bound on change time; 0 (default) = any time.",
+  "type": "integer"
+}
  15. Added

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention read-only nature, authentication requirements (dpop_token parameter hints at auth but not stated), pagination, or performance implications.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Extremely concise (single sentence), but lacks any structure or elaboration. Could be improved with brief parameter notes or usage context.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has 3 optional parameters and no output schema. The description does not clarify output shape, whether since_ms filters 'every' capability, or what 'capability' means in this domain. Insufficient for reliable invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 33% (since_ms described), but description adds no parameter information. The description does not explain how npub, since_ms, or dpop_token affect the listing, leaving agents to infer.

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?

The description clearly states it lists capabilities for 'semantic intent-matching', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like explain/upsert. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar list tools (e.g., cypher_list_coupons).

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 like cypher_explain_capability or cypher_upsert_capability. The description is purely imperative.

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

All cypher-mcp 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

C2.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

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.

Naming Consistency4/5

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.

Tool Count1/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Resources