Skip to main content
Glama

excalibur-mcp

by io.github.lonniev

excalibur_report_issue

File a field report about this service as a GitHub issue on the operator's repo.

Found a tool's metadata or response wrong or confusing? Report it where the tool lives. The author of record is your npub — no npub / no proof, no issue — and it is stamped into the issue so the report is attributed to you, not the operator. Costs a small fee (a free write to an issue tracker would be abused). The report is PUBLIC and goes to the maintainers' normal triage; nothing is verified here.

Returns the filed issue's repo, number, and url. If this operator has not enabled field reports, returns an "issue reporting not configured" situation and you are not charged.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYesThe details — which tool, what was wrong, what you expected.
npubYesYour Nostr public key (npub1...); the report's author of record.
titleYesOne-line summary of the problem.
tool_nameNoOptional: the specific tool the report is about (e.g. "schwab_get_option_chain").
dpop_tokenYesRaw JSON of a kind-27235 Nostr event signed by npub — not base64, not NIP-98 'Authorization: Nostr <b64>' framing. Its `u` tag must hold THIS tool's exact name (from tools/list), not the endpoint URL; content:"", created_at within 60s of now, and a random `nonce` tag recommended. Or a cached dpop_token phrase.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses the fee ('Costs a small fee'), public visibility ('The report is PUBLIC'), attribution to npub, lack of verification ('nothing is verified here'), and the return payload (repo, number, url). These are important behavioral traits beyond any structured metadata.

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 multi-sentence but each sentence contributes essential information—purpose, trigger condition, npub requirement, fee, publicity, return values, and unconfigured fallback. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, with no fluff or redundancy.

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 (5 params, output schema, fee, auth requirement), the description is comprehensive. It explains return values, error/unconfigured behavior, costs, and attribution while relying on the output schema for structural details. This is complete for an agent to decide when and how to invoke the tool.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3, but the tool description adds meaningful context for parameters like npub ('author of record') and the fee implication. The schema itself already extensively documents dpop_token requirements, so the description does not need to repeat those details.

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 opens with 'File a field report about this service as a GitHub issue on the operator's repo,' providing a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes this tool from the many sibling tools by focusing on reporting issues with tool metadata or responses, which no other sibling does.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Found a tool's metadata or response wrong or confusing?' and describes the expected outcome (GitHub issue on the operator's repo). It also covers the non-configured case with 'issue reporting not configured,' giving clear context for conditional use.

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