nukez-mcp

nukez_retrieve

List files or download content from your Nukez locker. Call with no filenames to list all files. Call with filenames=['file.txt'] to download specific files. KEYLESS (hosted) SERVER: a call without envelope returns action_required='sign_envelopes' with the exact list spec to sign (locker:list, plus locker:read when downloading); sign it with your wallet and re-call with the same arguments plus envelope=.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`encoding`	No	base64
`envelope`	No
`filenames`	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

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

There are no annotations, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly reveals the keyless authentication flow, the action_required='sign_envelopes' response, and the required permission scopes. It does not describe failure conditions, but the critical authorization behavior is transparent.

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?

The description is compact and every sentence carries useful information: the core operation, the no-arg list mode, filename mode, and the keyless envelope handshake. The behavior is front-loaded and the details are structured clearly without padding.

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?

The description covers the normal list and download workflows well, including keyless specifics and the envelope re-call pattern. However, receipt_id and encoding are never mentioned, and since all parameters are optional with no schema descriptions, an agent may not know when or why to use those parameters. This is effective but incomplete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for all parameter meaning. It usefully explains filenames and envelope, but it never explains receipt_id or encoding. Because two of the four parameters remain semantically unexplained, parameter coverage is only partial.

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 identifies the operation ('list files or download content') and the resource ('your Nukez locker'), and it distinguishes list mode from download mode. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like nukez_recall, so it falls just short of full sibling distinction.

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?

It provides explicit usage conditions: call with no filenames to list, call with filenames to download, and for keyless servers, call first without envelope then re-call with signed envelope. It does not discuss when to prefer an alternative sibling tool, but the primary usage guidance is concrete and actionable.

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?