Permanently delete a link by ID. Cannot be undone. Requires npub for credit billing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| npub | No | Required. Your Nostr public key (npub1...) for credit billing. | |
| link_id | Yes | The ID of the link | |
| brain_id | No | The ID of the brain (uses active brain if not specified) | |
| dpop_token | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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?
Without annotations, the description discloses the most critical behavioral traits: the deletion is permanent, cannot be undone, and requires an npub for credit billing. This covers the destructive nature and a unique billing requirement, though it does not mention side effects on related data or error behavior.
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 short sentences, directly stating the action, permanence, and prerequisite. No filler or redundancy beyond the emphasis on permanence.
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 presence of an output schema and the tool's straightforward delete operation, the description covers the core purpose, the destructive consequence, and the billing prerequisite. It omits details like the optional brain_id fallback, but these are already in the schema, so the description is reasonably complete.
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?
The schema already provides descriptions for 75% of parameters (link_id, npub, brain_id). The description only reinforces the npub billing requirement, adding little beyond the schema. It does not clarify dpop_token or the optional brain_id behavior, but the schema covers the essentials.
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 identifies the tool as deleting a link by ID, using the specific verb 'delete' and resource 'link'. It also differentiates from sibling tools like brain_delete_thought or brain_delete_attachment by explicitly targeting links.
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 provides implicit usage context by stating what the tool does, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this over alternatives or any exclusions. It gives no guidance about when not to use it, such as for soft deletes or when to use brain_update_link instead.
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.
Multiple tools have overlapping purposes. For example, `brain_request_credential_channel` and `brain_request_patron_credentials` serve similar roles, and `brain_receive_credentials`, `brain_receive_npub_proof`, and `brain_receive_patron_credentials` all handle receiving data from a courier flow. While descriptions help, the sheer number of tools (83) with similar-sounding purposes (check_ vs get_ vs request_ vs receive_ prefixes) makes it hard to quickly distinguish which tool to use.
The tools mostly follow a `brain_verb_noun` pattern (e.g., `brain_create_thought`, `brain_delete_link`), which provides some consistency. However, there are inconsistencies with prefixes like `brain_oracle_` (e.g., `brain_oracle_about`, `brain_oracle_how_to_join`) which are more like static pages than actions. Additionally, 'check' and 'get' seem interchangeable (e.g., `brain_check_balance` vs `brain_get_thought`), and 'list' is used alongside 'get' in a way that sometimes means the same thing (e.g., `brain_list_brains` vs `brain_get_brain`).
83 tools is an extremely large and unwieldy surface area. While the server aims to be a comprehensive 'operating system' for a specific ecosystem (DPYC/Nostr), this many tools will lead to agent confusion and high latency. Tools like `brain_oracle_about`, `brain_oracle_how_to_join`, and `brain_oracle_network_advisory` could easily be combined into a single tool or served as function parameters.
For its stated domain (managing a 'brain' with credits, payments, and Nostr integration), the tool set is remarkably complete. It covers CRUD operations, payment flows (purchase, check, restore), coupon management, credential handling, and even notarization. Minor gaps are hard to identify, though some flows feel overly complex (e.g., the multiple `request_`/`receive_` patterns could arguably be simplified). The high number of tools is a result of this extreme specialization.