quantakrypto pqc-tools (hosted)

apply_verified_patch

Deterministically VERIFY a proposed fix before writing it — runs the same patch-policy + verify_fix + blast-radius gates as qremediate (offline, no key, no network). Give the finding, the file's current content, and your proposed FULL corrected content; returns approved:true only if the patch is in-policy, clears the finding, adds no new finding, introduces no network/exec sink, and is bounded in size. This does NOT write the file — you write it, only when approved, and never auto-merge.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`finding`	Yes	The scan finding being fixed (needs a string ruleId and location.file).
`newContent`	Yes	Your proposed full corrected file content.
`originalContent`	Yes	The file's current full content.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Despite no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it runs patch-policy, verify_fix, and blast-radius gates; returns approved:true only under enumerated conditions; does not write the file; and operates offline. This exceeds the burden given absent annotations.

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?

Two dense but purposeful sentences. It front-loads the key verb and uses the remaining space for approval criteria and side-effect clarification, with zero 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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, this description fully covers inputs, behavior, approval criteria, and side effects. It tells the user exactly what to provide, what will happen, and what to do next.

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 schema already provides 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. The tool description adds value by explaining the roles of the finding, originalContent, and newContent in prose and by describing the approval output, going slightly beyond the schema.

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 'Deterministically VERIFY a proposed fix before writing it', naming a specific verb and resource, and explicitly states 'This does NOT write the file', which clearly distinguishes it from apply/remediate tools. It also conveys the offline, no-key/non-network nature.

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?

The description provides clear context for use: before writing a fix, offline, and with required inputs. It instructs the user to write only when approved and never auto-merge, but it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools such as verify_fix for comparison.

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

All quantakrypto pqc-tools (hosted) tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clear and distinct purposes, but there is some overlap in the fix/verify area: apply_verified_patch, verify_fix, and remediate_findings all involve verification, which could cause an agent to hesitate on which to use. However, the descriptions differentiate them well (single-fix verification vs. snippet verification vs. batch remediation). Triage and apply_triage are clearly sequential.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in lower_snake_case (e.g., check_dependency, list_rules, suggest_hybrid). The only slight variation is apply_verified_patch with an adjective, but it still follows verb_noun structure and the pattern is otherwise uniform.

Tool Count5/5

11 tools is well within the ideal 3-15 range and each serves a distinct function in the post-quantum analysis and remediation workflow: detection, explanation, triage, remediation, and scoring. No obvious redundant tools. The count feels well-scoped for the domain.

Completeness3/5

The tool set covers analysis (explain_finding, get_fix_examples), triage (triage_findings, apply_triage), remediation (remediate_findings, apply_verified_patch), and scoring (score_delta), but there is no scan tool. All triage/remediation tools require 'findings' arrays from an external scan_path command, which is not exposed as a tool in this server. This creates a significant gap in the workflow, as agents cannot initiate scans without an external dependency.

Resources

Need Help?