Read one of your saved snippets by id (full row incl. doc block
document). Free and owner-scoped. Returns {"success": true, "snippet": …}
or snippet_not_found.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| npub | No | Required. Your Nostr public key (npub1...). | |
| dpop_token | No | ||
| snippet_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the operation is read-only ('Read'), free, and owner-scoped. It also specifies the return format (success with snippet or error) but does not detail potential errors or side effects beyond 'snippet_not_found'. This is reasonably transparent for a read operation.
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 two sentences long with no redundancy. It efficiently conveys purpose, scope, and return format. Every sentence adds value.
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 presence of an output schema (indicated) and 3 parameters, the description covers core purpose and return format. However, it lacks parameter details and does not mention sibling tools or alternatives. It is functional but not fully comprehensive.
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 coverage is only 33%, and the description does not add any extra meaning to the parameters. The snippet_id parameter lacks format details in both schema and description. The npub and dpop_token parameters are not explained beyond the schema defaults. For low coverage, the description should compensate, but it does not.
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 tool reads a saved snippet by ID, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like excalibur_save_snippet, excalibur_delete_snippet, and excalibur_list_snippets. The verb 'read' and resource 'snippet' are specific, and the scope 'owner-scoped' adds clarity.
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 mentions 'Free and owner-scoped', implying it should be used by the owner for their own snippets. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like excalibur_list_snippets or excalibur_get_post. No direct exclusions or scenarios are provided.
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.