Delete a stored post. Default is a soft delete (status='archived');
pass hard=True to remove the row permanently.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hard | No | ||
| npub | No | Required. Your Nostr public key (npub1...) for credit billing. | |
| post_id | Yes | ||
| dpop_token | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the core behavioral difference between soft and hard delete, but lacks details on reversibility, authentication requirements, or cascading effects. Adequate but not thorough.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, second sentence explains the key parameter. No unnecessary words. Efficient and clear.
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 availability of an output schema, return values are covered. However, the description omits authentication context (despite 'npub' and 'dpop_token' parameters) and prerequisites. For a delete tool, this is a moderate gap.
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?
With only 25% schema description coverage, the description is needed to explain parameters. It explains 'hard' well but does not describe 'npub', 'dpop_token', or 'post_id' beyond implication. Insufficient compensation for low coverage.
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 action (delete), the resource (stored post), and distinguishes between soft and hard deletion. It differentiates from sibling tools like excalibur_delete_coupon or excalibur_delete_snippet by specifying the resource.
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 explains when to use hard vs soft delete with the 'hard' parameter, but does not provide guidance on prerequisites (e.g., ownership, authentication) or alternatives (e.g., update tool). No explicit when-not-to-use info.
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.