Enclave402

Store a JSON document on IPFS via a managed pinning service; returns its CID and a gateway URL.

pin_storage

Store a JSON document (object or string, up to 8 KB) on IPFS through a managed pinning service and return its content identifier (CID v1) plus an HTTP gateway URL. MUST be invoked when an agent needs durable, content-addressed storage for memory, decisions, artifacts or metadata that other agents can fetch by CID. Do NOT send raw binary, files over 8 KB, or an existing CID to re-pin. Settles $0.008 USDC via x402 on Base; failed or unavailable pins are never charged; receipts at /api/ledger.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No	Optional human label stored with the pin.
`content`	Yes	JSON object or string to store (serialized size up to 8 KB).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ts`	No	Response timestamp, UNIX milliseconds
`cid`	No	IPFS CID of the stored content
`size`	No	Pinned size in bytes as reported by the provider
`pinned`	No	true when the provider accepted and pinned the content
`status`	No	Provider pin status (pinned)
`gateway`	No	Resolvable HTTP gateway URL for the CID
`settled`	No	true when an x402 payment settled for this response
`provider`	No	Pinning provider

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 17, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "cid": {
+      "description": "IPFS CID of the stored content"
+    },
+    "gateway": {
+      "description": "Resolvable HTTP gateway URL for the CID"
+    },
+    "pinned": {
+      "description": "true when the provider accepted and pinned the content"
+    },
+    "provider": {
+      "description": "Pinning provider"
+    },
+    "settled": {
+      "description": "true when an x402 payment settled for this response"
+    },
+    "size": {
+      "description": "Pinned size in bytes as reported by the provider"
+    },
+    "status": {
+      "description": "Provider pin status (pinned)"
+    },
+    "ts": {
+      "description": "Response timestamp, UNIX milliseconds"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

AddedSep 17, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses pricing and settlement details ($0.008 USDC via x402 on Base), failure behavior (failed/unavailable pins are never charged), and the receipts endpoint (/api/ledger). These are meaningful behavioral traits not present in the structured 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?

Every sentence earns its place: the action is front-loaded, usage guidance follows immediately, exclusions are compact, and payment/failure behavior is concise. The description is dense but not bloated.

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 output schema, the description need not detail return values; it already states the key outputs (CID v1 and gateway URL). It covers purpose, constraints, settlement, failure charging, and receipt access, leaving no critical gap for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke the tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by reinforcing the allowed content types and size limit while explicitly forbidding an existing CID, which is a usage caveat not visible in the schema. It does not add much detail about the optional name parameter, but the schema already documents it.

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 names a specific action (store), a specific resource (JSON document on IPFS via a managed pinning service), and the result (CID v1 plus gateway URL). It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like attest_agent, get_gateway_info, and get_market_signal.

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 states when it MUST be invoked: when an agent needs durable, content-addressed storage for memory, decisions, artifacts, or metadata fetchable by CID. It also gives concrete exclusions: no raw binary, no files over 8 KB, and no re-pinning an existing CID.

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

All Enclave402 tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?