quantakrypto pqc-tools (hosted)

suggest_hybrid

Recommend a post-quantum / hybrid migration. Provide an 'algorithm' (e.g. RSA, ECDH, ECDSA) or free-text 'context' describing the usage. Set 'tier' to 'category-5' for CNSA 2.0 / national-security systems.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`tier`	No	Security tier: 'category-3' (default, commercial — ML-KEM-768 / ML-DSA-65) or 'category-5' (CNSA 2.0 / NSS, long-lived secrets — ML-KEM-1024 / ML-DSA-87).
`context`	No	Free-text description of the cryptographic usage (used when no algorithm is given).
`algorithm`	No	Classical algorithm family to migrate away from.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden but only states the recommendation behavior; it does not disclose return format or explicitly confirm no side effects.

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 front-loaded sentences, every clause earns its place; no redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple 3-param tool with rich schema, the description is reasonably complete; however, no output schema means return-value details are absent, so not a 5.

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?

Schema covers 100%, but the description adds value by clarifying that algorithm and context are alternatives and giving examples, plus when to use category-5.

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 specific verb ('Recommend') and resource ('a post-quantum / hybrid migration'), clearly differentiating from sibling triage/remediation tools.

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 instructs to provide either an algorithm or free-text context and to set tier to 'category-5' for CNSA 2.0/NSS, giving clear usage context; it does not explicitly mention when to prefer alternatives.

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?