Skip to main content
Glama

personalbrain-mcp

by io.github.lonniev

brain_delete_thought

Permanently delete a thought by ID. Cannot be undone. Requires npub for credit billing.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
npubNoRequired. Your Nostr public key (npub1...) for credit billing.
confirmNoIf True, verify the deletion against the authoritative change-log (a logged DELETED entry) and attach a ``confirmation`` block. The command store already 404s a deleted thought; this adds an audit-grade log proof. Costs one extra billed read.
brain_idNoThe ID of the brain (uses active brain if not specified)
dpop_tokenNo
thought_idYesThe ID of the thought

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / confirm
      Added value: +{
+  "default": false,
+  "description": "If True, verify the deletion against the authoritative change-log\n(a logged DELETED entry) and attach a ``confirmation`` block. The\ncommand store already 404s a deleted thought; this adds an audit-grade\nlog proof. Costs one extra billed read.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It does disclose the irreversible nature ('Cannot be undone') and the billing prerequisite ('Requires npub'), which are significant. However, it omits behavioral details like the optional `confirm` parameter's audit-grade verification and the extra billable read it costs, which is a gap for a delete operation.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action, irreversibility, and a key precondition with no redundant words. Every phrase earns its place.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The output schema exists so return values are handled. The description covers the essential destructive context and billing requirement, but it omits significant nuances like the `confirm` parameter's audit-proof behavior and the cost of an extra read. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, a more complete overview would help, but the core usage is clear.

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 description coverage is 80% (four of five parameters documented), so the schema already explains most params. The description adds only that npub is for credit billing, which is redundant with the schema's description. It does not clarify the undocumented `dpop_token` parameter or add syntax/format details, so the description adds little value beyond the schema.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states 'Permanently delete a thought by ID', with a specific verb and resource, and clearly distinguishes from siblings like brain_create_thought and brain_update_thought. The additional warning 'Cannot be undone' reinforces the destructive purpose.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage: it's for deleting a thought, and notes the requirement of npub for credit billing. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving the usage context to be inferred from the tool name and the 'permanent' warning.

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

All personalbrain-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

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

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.

Naming Consistency3/5

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`).

Tool Count2/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Resources