Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Flux Cloud

by io.github.RunOnFlux
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Build a Flux app specification from a simple description

flux_build_spec
Read-only

Turns images, ports, resources and a term into a complete, correctly formatted v8 specification, with public ports auto-picked and data replication enabled. Returns the spec plus local validation errors and warnings.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "components": "<components>"
    },
    "name": "flux_build_spec"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesUnique app name: letters, digits, inner hyphens. Not starting with "flux" or "zel".
nodesNo
ownerNoFlux ID that will own the app. Defaults to the configured or passed key.
monthsNoTerm in network months (88000 blocks each). Default 1.
contactsNo
staticipNo
instancesNoCopies on distinct nodes. Default 3.
componentsYes
descriptionNo
geolocationNo
expireBlocksNoExact term in blocks; overrides months.
fluxIdPrivateKeyNoWIF private key of the Flux ID that owns the app. Use a dedicated key from flux_generate_keys, never a main wallet key.
paymentPrivateKeyNoWIF private key of the Flux address that pays. Fund it with only what you intend to spend.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond the annotations: public ports are auto-picked, data replication is enabled by default, and the response includes local validation errors and warnings. That said, it omits anything about the private-key inputs (fluxIdPrivateKey/paymentPrivateKey) and any auth or side-effect notes.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool produces and followed by the behavioral defaults and return content. Nothing is wasted, though the second sentence could be slightly more informative about the returned validation output.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 13-parameter builder with 54% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the overall purpose, the notable defaults, and the return shape (spec + errors/warnings). It does not address the numerous undocumented parameters or the sensitive private-key inputs, leaving meaningful gaps for a tool of this complexity.

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 description coverage is only 54%, so the description should compensate but largely does not. It gestures at the key input groups ('images, ports, resources and a term') and confirms auto-picking of public ports and the replication default, but many parameters (owner, nodes, geolocation, contacts, expireBlocks, private keys) get no added meaning. Baseline 3 fits given partial schema coverage and partial description help.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a concrete verb+resource: 'Turns images, ports, resources and a term into a complete, correctly formatted v8 specification.' This is specific and clearly a build/assembly operation. However, it does not differentiate itself from close siblings such as flux_validate_spec or flux_quote_app, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The agent is left to infer that this belongs before validate/deploy, and the description never mentions the sibling tools that share its domain (validate_spec, quote_app, deploy_app). No prerequisites or ordering are stated.

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

All Flux Cloud toolsInspect
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