Skip to main content
Glama

excalibur-mcp

by io.github.lonniev

excalibur_receive_credentials

Pick up credentials from the Secure Courier.

Completes the CREDENTIAL-DELIVERY flow (the ownership-proof counterpart is receive_npub_proof).

Call this only after the user confirms they have replied. Deterministic, one-shot retrieval: name the response you want with (sender_npub, service, dpop_token) and the tool drains ONLY the rendezvous relay that channel was pinned to. Every popped DM with the wrong session phrase is deleted and its sender is NACK'd; the first DM with the matching phrase is accepted (ACK'd) and the scan stops. If none match, the queue is drained and a courier_not_found result is returned. Do NOT poll, loop, or retry.

If a credential_card (ncred1...) is provided, it is redeemed directly without any relay access (dpop_token not required for that path). On success, the payment processor client is reinitialized from the new credentials — no server restart needed.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
serviceNoRequired. The credential service name (must match the service used in request_credential_channel).
dpop_tokenNoRequired. The session phrase returned by request_credential_channel for this exact channel.
sender_npubNoRequired. The npub that sent the credentials.
credential_cardNoOptional. An ncred1... card to redeem directly (bypasses the relay drain; dpop_token not needed).

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?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and delivers: wrong-session DMs are deleted and sender NACK'd, scanning stops at first match, queue is drained on no match, coupon card bypasses relay, and the payment client is reinitialized without restart. This is rich, specific behavioral disclosure.

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 front-loaded with a one-sentence purpose, then flows logically through call conditions, deterministic behavior, failure handling, and optional card path. Every sentence earns its place; the detail is necessary for a destructive one-shot operation.

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 complex, side-effect-heavy tool with no annotations, the description covers when to call, what happens on success/failure, destructive side effects, and the no-retry rule. An output schema exists, so return-value details are not required. It is fully contextual.

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. The description adds relational meaning by grouping `(sender_npub, service, dpop_token)` as the response identifier and explaining that `credential_card` bypasses relay access and makes `dpop_token` unnecessary. However, the schema says 'Required' in prose but has no actual `required` array, which creates minor ambiguity.

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 function ('Pick up credentials from the Secure Courier') and explicitly positions it as completing the CREDENTIAL-DELIVERY flow. It differentiates from the sibling `receive_npub_proof` by naming it as the ownership-proof counterpart.

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?

It gives explicit timing guidance ('Call this only after the user confirms they have replied') and clear prohibitions ('Do NOT poll, loop, or retry'). It names the counterpart tool, but does not fully enumerate all alternative scenarios or when not to use the tool beyond these constraints.

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