Skip to main content
Glama

cypher-mcp

by io.github.lonniev

cypher_list_issues

List every triaged issue for the Issues register.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
npubNo
since_msNoEpoch-ms lower bound on triage/scope 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 triage/scope 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 convey behavioral traits. It only states it lists triaged issues, omitting whether it is read-only, requires authentication (likely dpop_token), pagination, or effect on system state. Minimal transparency.

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?

Single sentence is concise, but it is too terse and lacks crucial information. It earns its place by stating the core purpose, but fails to deliver additional value.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. Does not explain parameters, return values, or usage context compared to related tools like cypher_claim_issue.

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?

Description does not mention any of the three parameters (npub, since_ms, dpop_token). With schema description coverage at only 33% (only since_ms documented in schema), the tool description adds zero value for parameter understanding.

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?

Clearly states the action (list), resource (triaged issues), and scope (Issues register). Distinguishes from issue-modification siblings like cypher_claim_issue or cypher_report_issue. However, 'triaged' is not defined, leaving some ambiguity.

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 such as cypher_claim_issue or cypher_report_issue. No mention of context or exclusions.

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