Check this operator's adoption-request status at a chosen Authority.
Free. Polls the Authority MCP-to-MCP for the status of this operator's request (pending / approved / rejected / provisioned).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dpop_token | No | ||
| authority_npub | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Given no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It mentions 'free' and 'polls the Authority MCP-to-MCP' and lists possible statuses (pending/approved/rejected/provisioned). However, it does not discuss idempotency, permissions, or whether the operation is read-only.
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 concise with three sentences and a bullet list. The main purpose is front-loaded. However, it could be slightly more structured by adding parameter explanations.
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?
Despite having an output schema and only 2 parameters, the description lacks essential context: no parameter descriptions, no authentication requirements, no explanation of the polling behavior or expected response format. The tool's purpose is clear but incomplete for reliable agent usage.
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?
Schema parameter coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any parameters. 'authority_npub' is implied by 'chosen Authority' but not explicitly described, and 'dpop_token' is entirely omitted. This is a critical gap.
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 states the verb 'check', the resource 'operator's adoption-request status', and the scope 'at a chosen Authority'. It distinguishes from siblings like excalibur_request_adoption and excalibur_get_operator_onboarding_status.
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 implies usage (checking adoption status) but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor mentions alternatives among the many sibling tools.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct operation and domain (account, posts, coupons, credentials, scheduling, oracle, etc.), with clear differentiation even for similar-sounding tools like check_balance vs check_authority_balance or list_coupons vs list_my_coupons. There is no ambiguity.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., create_post, delete_coupon, list_posts), with no mixing of styles. The excalibur_ prefix is uniform.
With 72 tools, the server far exceeds the typical well-scoped range (3–15). While the functionality is broad, the sheer number feels excessive for a single MCP server, leading to an extreme mismatch.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle for core domains: CRUD for posts, snippets, coupons, credentials; complete flows for OAuth, npub proof, scheduling, notarization, and payments. No obvious gaps are present.