Skip to main content
Glama

excalibur-mcp

by io.github.lonniev

excalibur_process_scheduled_posts

Launch a publisher for every due post (operator-only).

Selects scheduled posts whose publish_at has arrived, claims each atomically, and starts one background publisher per post. It does NOT publish: composing content, billing the owner, posting to X and recording the outcome all belong to the publisher, which runs on the async job queue and so may take the minutes a dynamic block needs. This call returns as soon as the work is dispatched — expect it to be fast even when the publishing itself is slow, and read per-post outcomes from get_scheduler_log or the post rows.

Requires the operator's npub proof; the trigger itself is free. Returns {kind: "tick", processed, launched, contended}.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
npubNoThe OPERATOR's npub (npub1...); this tool is operator-only.
dpop_tokenNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool claims posts atomically, starts background publishers, returns immediately, and that the actual publishing may take minutes. It also specifies the return format and the operator requirement. This is highly transparent.

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 succinct and front-loaded with the core action. Each sentence adds essential information (operator-only, atomic claim, async behavior, outcome retrieval, return format). No unnecessary words or repetition.

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?

Given the tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema (implied by description of return format), the description covers all critical aspects: purpose, prerequisites, behavior, outcomes, and caveats. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 coverage is 50%, with only npub having a description. The description adds value by stating 'Requires the operator's npub proof', reinforcing the schema. However, dpop_token is undocumented in both the schema and description. The description compensates partially but not fully for the low coverage.

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 launches a publisher for every due post, operator-only. It specifies the action (selecting, claiming, starting publishers) and distinguishes from the actual publishing process, which is done by a separate publisher. This differentiates it from sibling tools that handle other tasks.

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 explains when to use the tool (for due scheduled posts) and what it does not do (publishing). It also mentions that outcomes can be read from get_scheduler_log or post rows, providing guidance for follow-up. While it does not explicitly list alternatives, the context is sufficient for an AI agent to understand usage.

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