Skip to main content
Glama

CipherHUB Cryptography Toolkit

by io.github.bowenerchen
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

ecc_key_verify

[ecc] ECC 公钥验签（SECP* 用 ECDSA，ED25519 用 EdDSA）。 【参数】

  • ecc_public_key_in_pem：PEM 公钥

  • data_in_hex：原始数据 Hex

  • signature_in_hex：签名 Hex

  • sign_raw_data_mode：必须与签名时一致

  • hash_algorithm：必须与签名时一致 【输出】verified（bool，True=验签通过）、curve_name。 【曲线限制】X25519 不可用于验签。

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
signature_in_hexNo签名的十六进制字符串
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_public_key_in_pemNoECC 公钥的 PEM 文本（含 BEGIN/END 头尾的 Base64 编码文本）

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed6 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / data_in_hex / description
      Added value: +"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"
    • addedInput schema / properties / ecc_public_key_in_pem / description
      Added value: +"ECC 公钥的 PEM 文本（含 BEGIN/END 头尾的 Base64 编码文本）"
    • addedInput schema / properties / hash_algorithm / description
      Added value: +"哈希算法名称，可选值：Sha1 / Sha224 / Sha256 / Sha384 / Sha512（ECC 不支持 Sm3）"
    • addedInput schema / properties / hash_algorithm / enum
      Added value: +[
+  "Sha1",
+  "Sha224",
+  "Sha256",
+  "Sha384",
+  "Sha512"
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / sign_raw_data_mode / description
      Added value: +"True=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"
    • addedInput schema / properties / signature_in_hex / description
      Added value: +"签名的十六进制字符串"
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the output fields ('verified' bool and 'curve_name'), algorithm behavior based on curve type, and a hard limitation for X25519. It does not cover error/edge-case behavior, but for a verification operation the essential behavior is well conveyed.

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 compact and well organized with clear sections for parameters, output, and curve restrictions. The purpose is front-loaded, and every line contributes either operational guidance or a constraint with no 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 the tool's moderate complexity and the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description covers the essential context: algorithm mapping, output semantics, parameter consistency requirements, and an explicit unsupported curve. An agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds important cross-parameter constraints—sign_raw_data_mode and hash_algorithm must match the original signing parameters—and links curve type to algorithm choice. It does not add per-parameter detail for data_in_hex or signature_in_hex, but the added constraints push it above 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 states a specific operation, 'ECC 公钥验签' (ECC public-key signature verification), and adds algorithm mapping (ECDSA for SECP*, EdDSA for ED25519). This clearly distinguishes it from other verify tools for RSA/SM2 and from ECC key generation/exchange siblings.

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 operational guidance: SECP* curves use ECDSA, ED25519 uses EdDSA, X25519 is explicitly unusable, and sign_raw_data_mode/hash_algorithm must match the signing side. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the curve restrictions and ECC-specific context make appropriate usage clear.

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
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources