Skip to main content
Glama

CipherHUB Cryptography Toolkit

by io.github.bowenerchen

ecc_key_sign

[ecc] ECC 私钥签名（SECP* 用 ECDSA，ED25519 用 EdDSA）。 【参数】

  • ecc_private_key_in_pem：PEM 私钥

  • plain_data_in_hex：待签数据 Hex

  • sign_raw_data_mode：True=对原文签名（内部先哈希），False=plain_data_in_hex 已是摘要

  • hash_algorithm：Sha256/Sha384/Sha512 等（EdDSA 忽略此参数）

  • ecc_private_key_password：若私钥加密则传入 【输出】signature_in_hex、signature_length、curve_name。 【曲线限制】X25519 不可用于签名。

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
data_in_hexNo数据的十六进制字符串。RAW 模式为消息原文 Hex，DIGEST 模式为哈希摘要 Hex
hash_algorithmNo哈希算法名称，可选值：Sha1 / Sha224 / Sha256 / Sha384 / Sha512（ECC 不支持 Sm3）Sha512
sign_raw_data_modeNoTrue=对原文签名（服务端内部先哈希），False=data_in_hex 已是哈希摘要的 Hex
ecc_private_key_in_pemNoECC 私钥的 PEM 文本（含 BEGIN/END 头尾的 Base64 编码文本）
ecc_private_key_passwordNoECC 私钥的加密密码（原始字符串，非编码格式）

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description explains internal behavior: raw mode triggers server-side hashing, digest mode expects a precomputed hash, and algorithm selection is curve-dependent. This goes beyond the basic purpose and helps predict behavior, though it omits edge cases or error handling.

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 description is well-structured with sections for parameters, output, and restrictions. It is front-loaded with purpose, though it repeats some schema details and could be slightly more concise.

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 crypto signing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers parameters, output fields, and curve restrictions. It could be more complete by describing the signature format or error conditions, but it provides enough for a competent agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some value by clarifying that EdDSA ignores hash_algorithm, but it introduces a mismatch by referring to 'plain_data_in_hex' while the schema defines the parameter as 'data_in_hex', which could confuse an agent.

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 '[ecc] ECC 私钥签名', clearly identifying the operation as ECC private-key signing. It further specifies algorithm choice by curve (ECDSA vs EdDSA), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like ecc_key_verify or ecc_key_exchange.

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 gives practical usage context: it explains raw vs digest mode, notes that EdDSA ignores hash_algorithm, and warns that X25519 cannot be used. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when to prefer this over ecc_key_verify.

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

All CipherHUB Cryptography Toolkit toolsInspect
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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target a distinct algorithm+operation pair (e.g., rsa_sign vs sm2_sign vs ml_dsa_sign), and descriptions are detailed. However, block_cipher and stream_cipher both perform symmetric encryption, and ecc_key_exchange and hybrid_kex overlap as key exchange, requiring careful reading to distinguish.

Naming Consistency3/5

Naming is inconsistent across algorithm families: key generation mixes generate_ecc/generate_rsa with ml_dsa_keygen/ml_kem_keygen, and encryption mixes rsa_encryption/sm2_encryption with block_cipher/stream_cipher. Within each family (e.g., rsa_sign/rsa_verify, ml_dsa_sign/ml_dsa_verify), names are predictable, but the overall pattern is not uniform.

Tool Count2/5

32 tools is far above the typical 3-15 range for a well-scoped server. While every tool has a distinct function, the large surface makes the set heavy and harder to navigate, especially with multiple algorithm families and niche utilities.

Completeness5/5

The toolkit gives comprehensive coverage: key generation, encryption/decryption, signing/verification for RSA, ECC, SM2, ML-DSA, ML-KEM, plus symmetric ciphers, hashing, and key exchange. Full workflows are supported with no dead ends, and even helper tools for debugging are included.

Resources