Skip to main content
Glama

excalibur-mcp

by io.github.lonniev

excalibur_receive_npub_proof

Receive npub ownership confirmation from a patron.

Completes the npub-OWNERSHIP-PROOF flow (the credential-delivery counterpart is receive_credentials).

Call this only after the user confirms they have replied. Deterministic, one-shot retrieval: name the response with (patron_npub, dpop_token) — the dpop_token being the value returned by request_npub_proof. The tool drains ONLY the pinned rendezvous relay that challenge was published on, stopping at the DM whose phrase matches. Mismatched DMs are deleted and NACK'd (without revealing the expected phrase). If called before the user replies, their message will never be found. Do NOT poll, loop, or retry.

The signed DM itself proves npub ownership (the patron's nsec signed it). On success, returns the dpop_token — the same token. The calling application MUST remember it and pass it as the dpop_token parameter on every subsequent paid tool call. The proof (a hash of the token) is stored in the vault keyed by that hash — the MCP never stores the raw token itself. Free.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dpop_tokenNoRequired. The dpop_token returned by request_npub_proof.
patron_npubNoRequired. The patron's npub to receive proof from.

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?

Despite no annotations, description discloses deterministic one-shot retrieval, relay scoping, deletion/NACK of mismatched DMs, proof semantics (signed DM proves ownership), no raw token storage, and free pricing – far beyond baseline.

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?

Dense and layered: starts with a one-line purpose, then flow context, critical call timing, behavior, and storage facts. No filler; each sentence adds necessary guidance.

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?

Covers prerequisites, timing, failure behavior, security model, return value, and downstream usage expectations. Even with an output schema present, the description provides full operational context for a nuanced one-shot protocol tool.

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 100% with both parameters described. Description reinforces that dpop_token comes from request_npub_proof and that both must be supplied, but adds no new parameter-specific format or constraints beyond schema.

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 it receives npub ownership confirmation from a patron, names the flow (npub-OWNERSHIP-PROOF), and identifies receive_credentials as the credential-delivery counterpart, differentiating it from siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit when-to-use: 'Call this only after the user confirms they have replied.' Explicit prohibitions: 'Do NOT poll, loop, or retry.' Explains consequence if called too early and names the alternative tool receive_credentials.

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