Skip to main content
Glama

excalibur-mcp

by io.github.lonniev

excalibur_scheduler_pending

What is the scheduled-post cron Worker waiting on? (operator-only).

When the Worker's authorization lapses it DMs the operator a challenge phrase and parks. This returns that pending phrase so the operator can match it against the DM before approving in Studio — the Device-Grant second surface for a headless actor. The phrase lives only in the Worker's KV (an impostor can't inject it); we read it AS the operator (a kind-27235 signed with the operator key), so the human never signs anything in the browser.

restricted: gated to the operator npub, free. Never returns the active session token. Returns {phase, code, reason, requestedAt} — phase is pending / active / idle, or unavailable if the Worker can't be reached.

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

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: phrase lives in Worker's KV, read as operator using kind-27235 signed key, never returns active token, and gives output structure. No contradictions.

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?

Concise and front-loaded with purpose. Uses formatting effectively. The 'restricted' line is slightly redundant but not harmful.

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?

Complete for the tool's complexity: explains trigger, security, and return format. Output schema exists and description covers fields.

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?

Schema coverage is 50%; description repeats npub detail from schema but does not explain dpop_token at all. No added semantic meaning beyond the 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?

Clearly states the tool returns the pending challenge phrase from the Worker when authorization lapses. Specifies it is operator-only and distinguishes from sibling tools like excalibur_scheduler_status.

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?

Explains the scenario (Worker authorization lapses, DM challenge, parking) and that it is operator-only. Notes it never returns active session token, implying when not to use. No explicit alternative, but context is clear.

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