nukez-mcp

nukez_remember

Store a structured memory record in your Nukez locker. Memories are indexed for fast search via nukez_recall. Use namespaces to organize (e.g., 'config', 'context', 'decisions'). Requires: key, content, summary. ENVELOPE: pass a list of 2 envelopes (each with unique nonce, POST path, ops=locker:write) — one for the record file, one for the index.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`key`	Yes
`tags`	No
`content`	Yes
`summary`	Yes
`envelope`	No
`namespace`	No	general
`receipt_id`	No
`supersedes`	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

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that memories are indexed for search and requires two envelopes, but omits critical details: idempotency, overwrite behavior on duplicate key, error conditions, auth requirements, and what 'locker:write' implies. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is reasonably concise but could be more structured. It front-loads the main purpose but includes envelope details in a dense block. At 4 sentences, it is efficient but could be improved with clear bullet points for param explanations.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given 8 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values (a receipt? status?), nor does it cover all parameters. For a tool of this complexity, the description falls short of providing a complete picture.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains key, content, summary, and namespace, but fails to describe tags, receipt_id, supersedes, and the envelope parameter structure (despite mentioning envelopes in the description, the parameter type is not clarified). Several parameters are left undocumented.

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?

Description explicitly states 'Store a structured memory record in your Nukez locker' and mentions indexing for recall, distinguishing it from siblings like nukez_recall. The verb 'store' combined with the resource 'memory record' provides clear purpose.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Some guidance is provided: namespaces for organization, required parameters, and envelope construction. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use vs alternatives like nukez_store, and does not mention scenarios where this tool should be avoided.

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?