Skip to main content
Glama

Post-Quantum TLS Readiness

pqc_readiness
Read-onlyIdempotent

Check whether a website's public TLS endpoint is ready for post-quantum cryptography: does it complete a TLS 1.3 handshake that offers only the hybrid X25519MLKEM768 key exchange (ML-KEM), and does the organisation's own server provide it or a CDN edge in front of it. Also reports what the certificate chain is signed with (tracked, not scored: public CAs do not issue post-quantum certificates yet). Verdicts: ready (the origin server supports it), partial (a CDN edge provides it; the CDN-to-origin leg is invisible), not_ready (the hybrid-only handshake was refused), unknown (inconclusive; do not report it as "no"). Scope: only the public endpoint on port 443. Internal systems, VPNs, code, and Korean PQC algorithms (no standard TLS codepoints yet) are not observable, so present the result as an external indicator of migration progress, not a full PQC audit. Read-only; requires no API key; rate-limited. Returns the verdict, a 0-100 readiness score and grade, per-check statuses, and a shareable report link.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYesDomain whose HTTPS endpoint to check (e.g., 'example.com'). Scheme and path are stripped.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
gradeNo
scoreNo0-100 post-quantum readiness; null when inconclusive
checksNo
verdictYes'ready' | 'partial' | 'not_ready' | 'unknown'
reportUrlYesHuman-facing interactive report on dechonet.com
tlsVersionNo
keyExchangeNoHybrid group accepted (e.g. X25519MLKEM768), null if none
terminatedByNo'origin' or the CDN name whose edge answered

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (which already cover readOnly/idempotent/destructive/openWorld), the description discloses rate limiting, no API key requirement, port 443-only scope, and the CDN-to-origin blind spot. It also explicitly warns not to report 'unknown' as 'no', a behavioral caveat an agent would otherwise get wrong.

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 core capability is front-loaded in the first clause, and each subsequent sentence carries real information (verdicts, scope, return shape). It is dense and long for a single-parameter read, but little of it is 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?

Even though an output schema exists, the description defines all four verdict values and the scoring/grade semantics, plus scope limits and the external-indicator framing. Nothing an agent needs to interpret or safely report the result 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?

With one parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents that scheme and path are stripped. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a precise verb+resource: check whether a website's public TLS 443 endpoint completes a hybrid X25519MLKEM768 TLS 1.3 handshake. It is unmistakably distinct from the broad ssl_check sibling because it targets PQC migration readiness specifically, and defines the exact handshake it probes for.

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 context for when a result applies (external migration indicator) and excludes out-of-scope surfaces (internal systems, VPNs, code, Korean PQC). It does not explicitly route to a competing sibling like ssl_check, so it stops short of full when/when-not/alternative guidance.

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