Skip to main content
Glama

nukez-mcp

by io.github.ZlaylowZ

nukez_quote

Step 1: Get storage pricing and payment options. Returns price breakdown and every available payment method (SOL/USDC/USDT/WETH/BETA on Solana, USDC/USDT0/MON/WETH on Monad). Each option carries a destination_kind: 'wallet' (native SOL — send lamports to pay_to_address), 'spl_token_account' (Solana SPL tokens — pay_to_address IS already the treasury's token account; pass it DIRECTLY as the transferChecked destination, do NOT derive an ATA from it), or 'evm_address' (Monad — send native value to the address, or call transfer() on the token contract at token_address). SPL options also include a self-contained spl_transfer block (program_id, destination_token_account, mint, amount_raw, decimals) you can pass straight to a signer. Review payment_options, pick one, then sign+submit externally and call nukez_pay with the resulting tx_sig. Providers: gcs (default), mongodb, storj, arweave, filecoin, firestore.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
unitsNo
providerNogcs
pay_assetNo
pay_networkNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description provides extensive behavioral context: it returns a price breakdown and payment methods with detailed instructions on destination_kind and spl_transfer blocks. It does not explicitly state read-only status, but the quoting nature implies no side effects. The level of detail is high.

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 longer but front-loaded with the main purpose. It includes step-by-step instructions and technical details. Some redundancy exists (e.g., listing payment methods twice), but every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's behavior.

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 4 parameters and a complex output (payment options with nested blocks), the description covers providers, destination handling, and workflow connection to nukez_pay. It does not detail the 'units' parameter or the exact format of the price breakdown, but an output schema exists to fill that gap.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It mentions defaults and providers for the 'provider' parameter, lists pay_asset and pay_network as nullable with defaults, but does not explain 'units' or the semantics of pay_asset/pay_network in depth. The description adds value beyond 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 clearly states the tool is 'Step 1' for getting storage pricing and payment options, explicitly distinguishing it from sibling tools like nukez_pay (step 2). It describes the output as 'price breakdown and every available payment method' with specific asset lists.

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 positions the tool as the first step in a workflow, instructing users to 'pick one, then sign+submit externally and call nukez_pay'. It lists providers but does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or compare with alternatives. The context is clear for a sequential workflow.

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

All nukez-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
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