nukez-mcp

nukez_confirm

Confirm a file upload after sandbox curl completes. Call this after executing the curl command returned by nukez_store in sandbox mode. The server computes SHA-256 and records the hash. Requires a payer-signed locker:write envelope: signer-mode deployments sign automatically via the SDK; keyless clients first call without envelope to receive the exact envelope spec to sign, then re-call with envelope= (the batch spec returned by nukez_store is also accepted here). LARGE FILES: pass use_job=true after a resumable upload — the synchronous confirm streams the whole stored object on the request path, so large objects confirm through the gateway's asynchronous finalize job instead. Signer mode creates and polls the job automatically; keyless mode signs the job creation spec first, then signs the returned poll spec (fresh nonce each time, re-calling with job_id) until job_status is terminal (complete, partial, or failed).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`job_id`	No
`use_job`	No
`envelope`	No
`filename`	No
`receipt_id`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

Changed2 schema fields changedAug 23, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / job_id

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Job Id"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / use_job

Added value: +{
+  "default": false,
+  "title": "Use Job",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

Changed5 schema fields changedAug 10, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / envelope

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "additionalProperties": true,
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Envelope"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / filename / anyOf

Added value: +[
+  {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]

addedInput schema / properties / filename / default
```
Added value: +null
```
removedInput schema / properties / filename / type
```
Removed value: -"string"
```
removedInput schema / required
```
Removed value: -[
-  "filename"
-]
```

First observedJul 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the server-side SHA-256 hash computation, the need for a payer-signed locker:write envelope, the two-phase keyless envelope spec flow, the request-path streaming for synchronous confirms of large objects, and the async finalize job with terminal statuses (complete, partial, failed).

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 dense and front-loaded with the core action, and split into understandable chunks (normal flow, large files, keyless vs signer mode). It could be more readable, and the embedded strings are a bit noisy, but every clause earns its place and there is no filler.

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?

Complex multi-path behavior (keyless sign-verify flow, large-file jobs, payment envelope requirement) is fully covered in the description; the output schema exists and would document return values, so no gap there. An agent working without annotations still knows the full call sequence, required envelope semantics, and what terminal statuses to expect.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description fully explains envelope and use_job and provides the job_id and receipt_id context. It explains that the batch spec returned by nukez_store is also accepted in envelope, that two args are actually mutually required in practice, and describes the job lifecycle. This compensates completely for the bare 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 states a clear verb and resource ('Confirm a file upload'), and orients the agent by referencing the specific prior step ('after executing the curl command returned by nukez_store in sandbox mode'). It also distinguishes itself from the broader upload flow by highlighting the SHA-256 hashing and the large-file async path.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to call this tool and how: after the sandbox curl, with a payer-signed locker:write envelope, covering both signer-mode and keyless clients. It also spells out the large-file alternative (use_job=true, resumable upload) and the keyless signing/polling loop until terminal job status, effectively routing around sibling tools like nukez_store and nukez_upload_chunk.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All nukez-mcp tools Inspect

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

Disambiguation3/5

Some tools have overlapping boundaries: nukez_store, nukez_create_file, and nukez_upload_chunk all handle file ingestion, while nukez_verify and nukez_recompute_verify both verify locker integrity. The descriptions do clarify when each should be used, but an agent could still mis-select between upload paths or verification levels. nukez_setup also overlaps conceptually with the quote/pay/provision workflow.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tools share the nukez_ prefix and use lowercase snake_case, which creates a strong sense of consistency. Most follow a verb or verb_noun pattern, but a few like nukez_setup, nukez_status, and nukez_recompute_verify deviate from the dominant verb_noun structure. There is no convention mixing, so the naming remains predictable.

Tool Count4/5

At 15 tools, the server is at the upper edge of a well-scoped set, and the count is largely justified by the multi-stage storage workflow: quote/pay/provision, file upload paths, memory recall, and integrity verification. Some tools are very specialized, such as nukez_confirm and nukez_upload_chunk, but they support real necessary flows. It is slightly heavy because a few could be consolidated, but not bloated for the domain.

Completeness5/5

The server covers the full storage lifecycle: setup and status, payment steps, file store/create/upload/confirm/retrieve/delete, memory remember/recall, and both structural and byte-level verification. There are redundant paths but no obvious dead ends. The workflow from first purchase through provisioning, mutating storage, and later proving integrity is well covered.

Resources

Need Help?