Skip to main content
Glama

excalibur-mcp

by io.github.lonniev

excalibur_post_tweet

Post a text tweet with markdown formatting converted to Unicode rich text.

Accepts standard markdown inline formatting and converts it to Unicode Mathematical Alphanumeric Symbols that render as styled text on X:

**bold**          -> bold
*italic*          -> italic
***bold italic*** -> bold italic
`monospace`       -> monospace

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
npubNoRequired. Your Nostr public key (npub1...) for credit billing.
textYesTweet content with optional markdown formatting.
dpop_tokenNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the markdown-to-Unicode conversion behavior and gives examples, which is valuable. However, it omits any mention of authentication requirements, credit billing, or the fact that tweeting is a permanent public action. The npub billing detail appears only in the schema, not the description.

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 compact and front-loaded, leading with the core purpose and following with a concise explanation and examples. Every sentence earns its place, and the use of a code block makes the markdown conversion rules clear without unnecessary verbosity.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values need no description. The main behavior (markdown conversion) is thoroughly explained. However, for a mutation tool with billing implications, one might expect mention of prerequisites like authentication or credit balance, though the npub parameter in the schema hints at billing. The description is mostly complete for its intended use case.

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 67% (npub and text described, dpop_token not). The description adds meaningful semantics for the 'text' parameter by explaining markdown formatting and showing conversion examples. However, it provides no help for the undocumented dpop_token, and the npub description is already in the schema. Overall, the description adds some value but does not fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('Post') with a clear resource ('text tweet') and adds the unique behavior of converting markdown to Unicode Mathematical Alphanumeric Symbols. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like excalibur_post_tweet_image (image tweet) and excalibur_create_post.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for text tweets requiring markdown formatting, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like excalibur_create_post or excalibur_post_nostr_message. No exclusions or alternative comparisons are provided.

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