nukez-mcp

nukez_pay

Step 2: Record an externally-executed on-chain payment. The server is keyless and never signs transactions — execute the transfer yourself (Solana sendTransaction or an EVM client) and pass the resulting signature as tx_sig. Uses pay_req_id from nukez_quote (auto-resolved from state). Specify chain and pay_asset to identify the rail (e.g. chain='solana-mainnet', pay_asset='BETA'); defaults to the quote's choice. Solana SPL pre-flight: when the quote selected an SPL token (USDC/USDT/WETH/BETA), this tool fetches the tx via read-only RPC and verifies it transferred ≥ the expected amount of the expected mint to the treasury's SPL token account. A confirmed mismatch (typically: tokens sent to an ATA derived from pay_to_address) is REJECTED with a structured WRONG_DESTINATION error and the tx_sig is NOT recorded — the quote remains valid so you can re-pay correctly. Indeterminate pre-flights (RPC down, tx not yet visible) fall through to recording.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`chain`	No
`tx_sig`	No
`pay_asset`	No
`pay_req_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.

First observedJul 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behaviors: the server is keyless, pre-flight checks for Solana SPL, error handling with structured WRONG_DESTINATION error, indeterminate fall-through, and that the quote remains valid on failure. This is comprehensive and goes beyond basic expectations.

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 a single dense paragraph containing all necessary information without redundancy. Every sentence adds value, but it could be more structured (e.g., bullet points) for easier parsing. It is appropriately sized for the complexity.

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 complexity (payment recording with pre-flight checks, error handling), no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description covers purpose, usage, parameters, and behaviors thoroughly. An output schema exists, so return value details are not required.

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 schema has 0% coverage, so the description must add meaning. It explains all four parameters: tx_sig (pass the signature), pay_req_id (auto-resolved from state), chain and pay_asset (identify the rail with examples, defaults to quote's choice). It does not explicitly map to property names but context is clear.

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 'Record an externally-executed on-chain payment' with a specific verb ('record') and resource ('on-chain payment'). It also positions itself as 'Step 2' in a sequence, distinguishing it from sibling tools like nukez_quote and nukez_confirm.

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 provides clear usage context: after executing a transfer yourself, pass the signature. It mentions auto-resolution from nukez_quote and defaults. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives like nukez_verify.

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?