Skip to main content
Glama

roastify-mcp

by io.github.lonniev

roastify_request_npub_proof

Request npub ownership proof from a patron via Nostr DM.

This is the npub-OWNERSHIP-PROOF flow — use it when a call returns proof_required. It proves the caller controls an npub; it does NOT deliver any service secret. To hand an operator its API keys or OAuth secrets, use request_credential_channel instead.

Sends a challenge DM that the patron must sign and reply to using their Nostr client. This is a human-in-the-loop flow.

After calling this tool, STOP and tell the user to check their Nostr client and reply to the challenge. Wait for the user to confirm they have replied before calling receive_npub_proof. Do NOT poll or retry — each receive_npub_proof call destructively drains the relay mailbox.

Returns a dpop_token — the demonstrated-proof-of-possession token that the calling application MUST remember and pass as the dpop_token parameter on every subsequent paid tool call. The MCP does not retain this value across restarts.

Lifecycle: The cached proof expires after the patron's chosen duration. When it expires, call request_npub_proof again for a fresh challenge, then wait for the user, then call receive_npub_proof.

Free.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
reasonNoOptional. A human-readable purpose for the request ("I'm working on your request XYZ and need the Operator to do ABC for you"). Signed into the provenance attestation and shown in the DM, so the recipient sees *why* they are being asked — especially useful when the signer is unknown to them.
verify_atNoOptional. A free-form statement of WHERE you (the initiating agent) already showed this proof's one-time code to the user — a URL, or "your Claude.ai conversation", "the Grok session". The OAuth 2.0 Device Grant ``verification_uri``, generalized: the user approves only if the code in the DM matches the one you displayed there, so an unsolicited request they've never seen is refused. Signed into the attestation.
patron_npubNoRequired. The patron's npub to request proof from.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers rich behavioral context: human-in-the-loop signing, destructive relay-mailbox draining on receive_npub_proof, dpop_token not being retained across restarts, and proof expiry. It even warns against retries. This far exceeds what annotations would have provided.

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 long but every section earns its place: flow trigger, exclusions, call sequencing, destructive warning, return-value handling, and lifecycle. Clear structure with bolded headers and explicit lifecycle guidance helps an agent parse the critical behavioral constraints quickly.

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

Completeness5/5

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

This is a complete operating manual for the tool: when to call, what happens, what to do next, what not to do, what to remember, and when to start over. Even with an output schema present, the description adds the non-obvious dpop_token persistence requirement and the destructive drain warning, making the tool fully usable without external context.

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 100%, so each parameter is already documented in the input schema. The description adds flow context (e.g., how reason and verify_at relate to the user experience) but does not reveal any parameter semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Request npub ownership proof from a patron via Nostr DM.' It explicitly names the flow ('npub-OWNERSHIP-PROOF flow') and differentiates from request_credential_channel by saying it does NOT deliver service secrets. Clear enough that an agent can distinguish it from the 70+ sibling tools.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives an explicit trigger condition ('use it when a call returns proof_required') and explicit exclusions ('does NOT deliver any service secret... use request_credential_channel instead'). Also describes the operational sequence: call, wait for user reply, then call receive_npub_proof, and warns not to poll or retry. This is model behavior for usage guidance.

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

All roastify-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

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target clearly distinct resources—patron balances vs. operator Authority balances, design text vs. full design fetches, operator vs. patron credentials—and the verbose descriptions carefully separate request/receive flows. A few pairs could still be confused at a glance, such as service_status/session_status, forget_coupon/delete_coupon, and get_design_text/fetch_design.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tools share the roastify_ snake_case prefix and mostly follow a verb_noun pattern like list_, get_, update_, delete_, and create. However, several noun-only names (service_status, session_status, account_statement, oracle_about) and the inconsistent forget_ vs. delete_ distinction for credential/coupon removal keep it from being fully consistent.

Tool Count1/5

69 tools is an extreme count for a single MCP surface and far exceeds the 25+ threshold. Even though the tools span many subdomains—design, payments, coupons, credentials, pricing, notarization, oracle—the sheer number will be heavy on agent context and selection accuracy.

Completeness3/5

Core workflows are largely covered: design storage/editing, coupon lifecycle, credential vaults, credit purchasing, pricing models, notarization, and the oracle all have reasonable read/write surfaces. However, session_status explicitly tells not_registered operators to call register_operator, which does not exist in the tool set, and design editing lacks any delete-element operation, leaving notable dead ends.

Resources