Skip to main content
Glama

excalibur-mcp

by io.github.lonniev

excalibur_restore_neon_schema

Re-run ensure_schema() on every NeonVault this operator uses.

Diagnostic / recovery tool for the case where the Neon HTTP SQL API is returning persistent 4xx errors and the operator suspects the schema isn't there or grants are wrong. Idempotent — uses CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS so a successful re-run is harmless.

Returns the per-step result. If any step raises, surfaces the Neon error message inline (0.31.0 reads the SQL error body that earlier wheels swallowed behind raise_for_status).

RESTRICTED to operator — requires proof (nsec-signed).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dpop_tokenNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses idempotency, that it runs on all NeonVaults, returns per-step results, surfaces Neon error messages for errors, and requires operator-level authentication. This is comprehensive for a recovery tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise, with four sentences covering purpose, usage, behavior, and return/error handling. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the primary action. Minor improvement could be more explicit parameter explanation.

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?

Given the tool's complexity as a database recovery operation, the description covers purpose, usage, idempotency, error handling, and restrictions. The output schema exists but is not described, which is acceptable. The only gap is the undocumented dpop_token parameter.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The only parameter, dpop_token, has no description in the schema (0% coverage). The tool description does not explain this parameter, its purpose, or its format, leaving the agent uninformed. The description mentions 'proof (nsec-signed)' but does not connect it to dpop_token.

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 re-runs ensure_schema() on every NeonVault, specifies it is a diagnostic/recovery tool for persistent 4xx errors, and mentions idempotency. It distinguishes itself from siblings by its specific recovery purpose.

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 gives clear usage context: when Neon HTTP SQL API returns persistent 4xx errors and schema/grants are suspected. It states it's restricted to operators with nsec-signed proof. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives.

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