nukez-mcp

nukez_provision

Step 3: Confirm payment settlement on the gateway and provision the storage locker. Two modes: (a) Without envelope: pass pay_req_id + tx_sig (auto-resolved from state). Returns the receipt_id and a hint to build a signed locker:provision envelope. (b) With receipt_id + envelope: forwards the signed envelope to /v1/storage/signed_provision and activates the locker. Also accepts receipt_id alone to rehydrate an already-provisioned locker without re-paying.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "nukez_provision"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`chain`	No
`tx_sig`	No
`envelope`	No
`pay_asset`	No
`pay_req_id`	No
`receipt_id`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedJul 29, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses two modes, returns receipt_id and hint, and mentions rehydration without re-paying. However, it lacks details on side effects, permissions, and error conditions.

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 sentences with compact information, conveying both modes and parameter usage. Slightly long second sentence but no redundancy.

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 complexity (6 params, two modes, output schema exists), the description covers main use cases and return values. Lacks error scenarios but sufficient for typical usage.

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 has 0% description coverage. The description explains 4 of 6 parameters (pay_req_id, tx_sig, envelope, receipt_id) with context, but omits chain and pay_asset. Adds significant meaning but incomplete.

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 clearly states the tool is for confirming payment and provisioning a storage locker, describing two modes of operation. It is specific about the action but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like nukez_setup or nukez_status.

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?

Provides good usage guidance by explaining two modes with parameter combinations. It tells when to use each mode but does not explicitly state when not to use or contrast with 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

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?