nukez-mcp

nukez_verify

Fast structural verification of locker state. Returns merkle root, attestation status, and optional per-file proof. Pass memory_key to verify a specific memory record by key. Cheap: reads the persisted attestation; latency is independent of locker size (~sub-second typical). With push=True, also triggers a fresh on-chain attestation: the gateway enqueues the same background job the async path uses (its Cloud Tasks worker performs the single on-chain push) and polls server-side, returning the settled attestation — or a 202-style accepted response pointing at the verify endpoint if its 90-second poll ceiling expires first. DO NOT call repeatedly after every store/delete just to keep the attestation current — the gateway already runs auto-reattest after every file mutation, gated to skip when the manifest is unchanged since the last attestation, so manual push calls are normally unnecessary. Use push=True only when you explicitly need the on-chain anchor right now and inline. For byte-level proof that storage bytes still match the recorded hashes (re-downloads everything), use nukez_recompute_verify instead.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`push`	No
`envelope`	No
`filename`	No
`memory_key`	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.

First observedJul 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and reveals substantial behavior: cheap sub-second reads, push=True triggers a fresh on-chain attestation via Cloud Tasks with server-side polling and a 202 fallback after 90 seconds. It also discloses the gateway's auto-reattest behavior, making the tool's semantics transparent.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and uses detailed prose for push behavior. While longer than necessary, every sentence provides useful context; slight redundancy in the auto-reattest explanation could be trimmed.

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?

The description covers the primary purpose, return values, performance profile, push behavior, and alternatives, which is strong for a tool with no annotations. However, the unexplained optional parameters and reliance on the output schema for full return structure prevent a 5.

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 compensate. It explains memory_key and push semantics, but envelope, filename, and receipt_id remain unexplained beyond their names, leaving a gap for three of five parameters.

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 opens with 'Fast structural verification of locker state,' giving a specific verb and resource. It clearly states the return value includes merkle root and attestation status, and explicitly differentiates from nukez_recompute_verify for byte-level proofs.

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?

It provides explicit when-to-use guidance: warns against repeated push calls after every store/delete, explains when push=True is appropriate, and directs users to nukez_recompute_verify for byte-level proof. This directly addresses alternatives.

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?