Skip to main content
Glama

excalibur-mcp

by io.github.lonniev

excalibur_session_status

Check operator readiness. Returns the operator lifecycle state and clear guidance on what to do next. Free.

Lifecycle states:

  • ready: Operator is warm and fully operational — vault AND pricing model verified. Proceed with tool calls.

  • warming_up: Operator is initializing (cold start). Try a tool call — it will warm up on demand.

  • misconfigured: Persistence rejected a query with a permanent SQL error (permission denied, missing relation). Paid tools will fail until the operator repairs the database — retrying does not help.

  • quota_exceeded: The persistence provider (Neon) answered HTTP 402 — the operator's database has exhausted its compute/storage quota, so the books are locked for billing. Paid tools fail; retrying does NOT help. The operator's Authority must restore capacity (upgrade the plan or wait for the quota reset). Free tools remain available.

  • not_registered: Operator has no Authority relationship yet. Call register_operator first.

  • no_identity: Operator nsec is not configured. Deployment issue.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
patron_npubNoOptional. If supplied, the response includes an ``upstream_oauth`` block with the patron's stored OAuth token expiry (runtime-derived from vault state) so a client can refresh proactively rather than reactively after a stale-token failure.

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 the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses that the tool is free, explains each state's consequences (e.g., paid tools fail, free tools remain available), and mentions 'vault AND pricing model verified' for readiness. No contradictions with annotations.

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 the core purpose and cost, then uses a clear bulleted list for lifecycle states. Each bullet is concise and essential, and the length is justified by the complexity of the states.

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?

The description covers all lifecycle states and gives actionable next steps. With an output schema present, return values do not need to be detailed. No annotation means the description also covers cost and failure modes, making it complete for a status-check 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 description coverage is 100% for the single optional parameter, so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself does not mention the parameter, but the schema provides sufficient semantics. The description adds no additional parameter context 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?

The description begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Check operator readiness.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like service_status or scheduler_status by focusing on operator lifecycle. The lifecycle state list further clarifies what the tool 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?

The description provides explicit guidance for each lifecycle state, including when to proceed, when retrying is useless, and when to call a specific alternative (e.g., 'Call register_operator first'). It also states the tool is free, which helps decide when to use it.

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