Skip to main content
Glama

excalibur-mcp

by io.github.lonniev

excalibur_forget_credentials

Delete vaulted credentials for a specific service and npub.

For operator credentials, pass the operator's own npub. For patron credentials, pass the patron's npub. Always requires proof of npub ownership — a deletion is as destructive as a write.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
npubYesThe Nostr public key (npub1...) whose credentials to forget.
serviceYesThe credential service to forget.
dpop_tokenYesRaw JSON of a kind-27235 Nostr event signed by npub — not base64, not NIP-98 'Authorization: Nostr <b64>' framing. Its `u` tag must hold THIS tool's exact name (from tools/list), not the endpoint URL; content:"", created_at within 60s of now, and a random `nonce` tag recommended. Or a cached dpop_token phrase.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explicitly states 'always requires proof of npub ownership' and 'a deletion is as destructive as a write', disclosing destructive and auth requirements. The detailed dpop_token schema further describes exact token requirements.

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?

Two short paragraphs front-load the core action ('Delete vaulted credentials') and immediately follow with usage details. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy.

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?

For a destructive tool with no annotations and a detailed auth parameter, the description covers what, when, and how. It explains the two credential contexts and the required proof, while the output schema presumably covers return values.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; description enriches npub semantics by explaining operator vs patron credential use. It also reinforces the dpop_token requirement via the 'always requires proof' note, adding meaning beyond raw parameter names.

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?

Description clearly states 'Delete vaulted credentials for a specific service and npub', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from generic 'delete' siblings by scoping to service/npub and explaining operator/patron variants.

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 usage context by specifying which npub to pass for operator vs patron credentials. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives like delete_operator_credential or delete_patron_credential, but the instructions imply it handles both cases.

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