quantakrypto pqc-tools (hosted)

remediate_findings

Produce a deterministic remediation REQUEST bundle (rubric + fix schema + per-finding metadata + fingerprints) for YOU (the host agent) to fix. This tool calls no model and needs no key. For each finding, propose the corrected FULL file content, then VERIFY with verify_fix and keep only fixes that clear the finding. Never touch files with secrets; never auto-merge. Pass 'findings' from scan_path --format json.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`findings`	Yes	Findings from a scan's JSON output.

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 burden and does an excellent job. It discloses determinism, no model call, no key requirement, the verification workflow with verify_fix, filtering of fixes, and explicit no-secrets/no-auto-merge constraints. This provides rich behavioral context beyond what any structured annotation would offer.

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 concise and effectively front-loaded. It opens with the core output ('deterministic remediation REQUEST bundle') and then packs critical constraints and workflow steps into a few sentences. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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 the tool's complexity, the description covers the full workflow: input source, processing steps, verification, filtering, and safety constraints. Although there is no output schema, the description enumerates what the bundle includes (rubric, fix schema, metadata, fingerprints), giving the agent a complete picture without needing further documentation.

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 has 100% description coverage of the 'findings' parameter, including each subfield. The description adds meaningful provenance by instructing to pass findings from 'scan_path --format json', which is not captured in the schema. This extra guidance raises it above the baseline.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Produce a deterministic remediation REQUEST bundle' for the host agent to fix. It includes specific components (rubric, fix schema, metadata, fingerprints) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly prohibiting auto-merge and directing verification to verify_fix.

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 on how to use the tool: pass findings from scan_path --format json, propose corrected full file content, verify with verify_fix, and keep only fixes that clear the finding. It also gives exclusions ('Never touch files with secrets; never auto-merge'). It could be stronger by explicitly naming alternative tools, but the context is sufficient.

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?