Skip to main content
Glama

Check post-quantum TLS

check_post_quantum_tls
Read-onlyIdempotent

Does this public hostname negotiate hybrid post-quantum key exchange (X25519MLKEM768)? Returns TLS version, hybrid yes/no and a one-line verdict. Free. One TLS handshake per probe, no scanning.

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": {
      "hostname": "<hostname>"
    },
    "name": "check_post_quantum_tls"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hostnameYesPublic DNS hostname, e.g. www.example.com. IP addresses and internal names are refused.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds real context: it is free, performs exactly one TLS handshake per probe, and does no scanning, which sets expectations on cost and scope. It does not cover failure modes (e.g. what a host with no TLS yields).

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core question, then return values, then cost/scope constraints. Nothing is redundant.

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 one-parameter probe with no output schema, the description supplies the return shape (TLS version, hybrid yes/no, verdict) and the operational limits (one handshake, no scanning), leaving nothing an agent needs missing before calling it.

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% and the single hostname parameter is fully documented there, including the IP/internal-name restriction. The description echoes 'public hostname' but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 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 — probing a public hostname for hybrid post-quantum key exchange — and names the exact algorithm (X25519MLKEM768), which cleanly separates it from the sibling check_tls_certificate. It also states what comes back (TLS version, hybrid yes/no, verdict).

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 only implied by the 'public hostname' framing and the note that IPs and internal names are refused (in the schema). It never says when to pick this over check_tls_certificate, so the agent must infer the PQ-vs-certificate split.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources