Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Flux Cloud MCP server

Flux Cloud MCP server

Official
by RunOnFlux
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Generate a new Flux ID and payment key pair

flux_generate_keys

Generate two private keys for Flux ID and payment to enable app deployment on Flux Cloud; store them in the MCP server environment and restart.

Instructions

Creates two fresh private keys (WIF): one for the Flux ID that will own apps, one for the address that pays. The response contains the secrets; store them in the MCP server environment as FLUX_ID_PRIVATE_KEY and FLUX_PAYMENT_PRIVATE_KEY, then restart the server. Nothing is stored or sent anywhere by this tool.

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": "flux_generate_keys"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the response contains secrets, that nothing is stored or sent anywhere by the tool, and the required follow-up (store in env vars, restart server). It omits whether regeneration overwrites existing keys or is irreversible.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what is produced, followed by where the secrets go and the side-effect guarantee. No filler.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what is returned (two named secrets) and what the caller must do with them. The only meaningful gap is a warning about irreversibility or repeated invocation.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify and the baseline of 4 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: creates two fresh WIF private keys, one for the Flux ID and one for the payment address. This distinguishes it cleanly from sibling read tools like flux_get_identity, which retrieves rather than generates credentials.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the instruction to store keys in env vars and restart the server signals this is one-time setup. It never says when to call it versus when to use flux_get_identity to check for existing keys, nor what happens on a second call.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools