Skip to main content
Glama
projectcpu

project-cpu-mcp

by projectcpu
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersScoreDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

cpu_fulfill_reveal

Settle pending reveal requests by sending the missing draw on-chain, paying gas to avoid a second reveal. Omit arguments to process all open requests you own, or pass tokenIds to settle specific cells.

Instructions

Finish reveal requests you already opened that have not delivered their draw yet (call cpu_authenticate first). Where the network’s randomness mode leaves delivery to the player — see cpu_get_game_config — this sends the missing draw on-chain: it costs gas but pays for no second reveal. With no arguments it works through every open request you own; pass tokenIds to settle only those cells. If a request you know exists is not listed, name it directly with requestId plus source and it is settled without that list. Requests already settled are reported as such, not as errors. On a network where the randomness source delivers draws itself this call refuses — there is nothing to settle by hand there.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sourceNoAddress of the randomness source the request named by requestId was opened at.
tokenIdsNoCells whose open reveal requests to settle. Omit to settle every open reveal request you own.
requestIdNoSettle exactly this reveal request id, without asking the game API which requests are open — the way out when a request you know exists is not listed. Pass together with source.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.10.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / tokenIds / anyOf
      Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "items": {
-      "maximum": 48990,
-      "minimum": 1,
-      "type": "integer"
-    },
-    "type": "array"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "items": {
+      "maximum": 29150,
+      "minimum": 1,
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "type": "array"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
  2. First observedv0.8.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and meets it: it mentions gas cost, no second reveal, default batch behavior, tokenIds scoping, requestId+source override, idempotent handling of settled requests, and refusal on auto-delivery networks.

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 dense but each sentence contributes a distinct fact: core action, prerequisite, network-dependent behavior, batching, direct settlement fallback, and error semantics. It is front-loaded and contains no filler.

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?

For a chain call with no annotations, no output schema, and conditional network behavior, this description covers prerequisites, all parameter modes, error behavior ('Requests already settled are reported as such, not as errors'), and unsupported-network exclusion. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters precisely. The description restates their usage in context (e.g., 'requestId plus source') but adds no new format, range, or constraint semantics, so the high-coverage baseline 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Finish reveal requests you already opened...') and immediately distinguishes the tool from siblings by noting it 'sends the missing draw on-chain' and 'pays for no second reveal.' This is not a tautology and clearly differentiates it from related tools like cpu_reveal.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It gives explicit prerequisites ('call cpu_authenticate first'), points to cpu_get_game_config to determine the randomness mode, and states when not to use the tool ('On a network where the randomness source delivers draws itself this call refuses'). This is a clear when/why/alternatives policy.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/projectcpu/project-cpu-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server