Skip to main content
Glama

excalibur-mcp

by io.github.lonniev

excalibur_fetch_dynamic_block

Redeem a resolve_dynamic_block claim check (free, proof-gated).

Poll this with the claim_check from resolve_dynamic_block until status == "done" (the resolved fragment is result.text). While the job runs it returns {"status": "running", "poll_after_seconds": N}; on failure {"status": "error", ...} (the start fare is refunded); an unknown or aged-out claim returns {"status": "expired", ...}. Owner-scoped — only the npub that started the job can redeem it. Also acts as the watchdog: a stalled job is re-kicked when polled.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
npubNoRequired. Your Nostr public key (npub1...).
dpop_tokenNo
claim_checkYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses polling behavior, status transitions, owner-scoping, and watchdog re-kick of stalled jobs. It lacks mention of rate limits or potential side effects but covers key behavioral traits.

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 short, well-structured paragraph that front-loads the primary purpose and then details statuses and behavior. Every sentence adds value, with no unnecessary words.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With output schema present, the description covers polling protocol, status meanings, and watchdog behavior. It is nearly complete for a polling tool, though it omits details like maximum poll intervals or timeouts.

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 only 33% (npub only). The description adds context for claim_check by linking it to resolve_dynamic_block, but does not explain npub or dpop_token beyond schema descriptions. It provides some added value but not full compensation.

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 the tool's purpose: redeeming a claim check from resolve_dynamic_block. It specifies it is free and proof-gated, and explicitly contrasts with the initial resolve_dynamic_block call, distinguishing it from siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides clear when-to-use guidance: poll with the claim_check until status is 'done'. It outlines different response statuses and mentions owner-scoping and watchdog behavior. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context is sufficient.

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

All excalibur-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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

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.

Naming Consistency5/5

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.

Tool Count1/5

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.

Completeness5/5

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.

Resources