Privi Quantum

Run on quantum hardware

quantum_run_hardware

Train the CVaR-QAOA circuit, route it to a quantum backend (IonQ, IBM Quantum, Amazon Braket or this server's simulator) by price or speed, and return a job id. When the run finishes, the answer is sealed with a post-quantum signed attestation and a Quantum Advantage Receipt against classical baselines. Poll with quantum_hardware_job. Paid per call via x402 when payments are on (a routing fee, see quantum_pricing). Paid QPUs also need a Quantum Mandate signed by the agent's human (quantum_mandate_request) and run only within the operator's configured budget. A call that is blocked or fails to submit is not charged.

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": {
      "problem": "<problem>",
      "data": "<data>"
    },
    "name": "quantum_run_hardware"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes	Problem data in the shape quantum_problems describes
`shots`	No	Shots on the backend (1-10000)
`layers`	No	QAOA depth p (1-4)
`policy`	No	With backend='auto': cheapest \| fastest \| hardware (real QPUs only)	cheapest
`backend`	No	'auto' or a backend id from quantum_backends (e.g. ionq:simulator, ionq:qpu.forte-1, ibm:ibm_brisbane)	auto
`problem`	Yes	balance_lines \| select_lots \| split_conflicts \| qubo (see quantum_problems)
`mandate_id`	No	qm_... Quantum Mandate your human signed; required for any paid backend
`privi_pass`	No	Your Privi pass (ppass_...); required with a mandate
`max_cost_usd`	No	Refuse if the estimated price is above this

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 28, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / mandate_id

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "qm_... Quantum Mandate your human signed; required for any paid backend",
+  "title": "Mandate Id"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / privi_pass

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Your Privi pass (ppass_...); required with a mandate",
+  "title": "Privi Pass"
+}

AddedOct 28, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond annotations: asynchronous job return, polling, post-quantum signed attestation, Quantum Advantage Receipt, x402 payment behavior, mandate requirements, operator budget limits, and non-charging on blocked/failed submissions. It is consistent with the non-readOnly, openWorld, non-idempotent annotations.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the primary action and return value, then covers polling, payments, mandates, and failure charging. It is dense but appropriate for a complex paid quantum-hardware tool; a more structured format could improve scanability.

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 tool's complexity, nine parameters, no output schema, and open-world paid execution, the description is complete enough to guide correct invocation. It covers async behavior, follow-up polling, payment prerequisites, mandate authorization, budget constraints, and failure charging.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all nine parameters thoroughly. The description adds only limited inter-parameter context, such as routing by price or speed and paid-backend mandate requirements, but does not meaningfully expand beyond what the schema already states.

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 states a specific verb and resource: train a CVaR-QAOA circuit, route it to a quantum backend, and return a job id. It also names the follow-up poll tool, quantum_hardware_job, but does not explicitly distinguish this from similar siblings such as quantum_run_circuit or quantum_optimize.

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 gives clear operational context: use quantum_hardware_job to poll, check quantum_pricing for routing fees, obtain a mandate via quantum_mandate_request for paid QPUs, and note that blocked or failed submissions are not charged. It does not explicitly say when to choose this over quantum_run_circuit or quantum_optimize.

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

All Privi Quantum 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.