generate_random_data
[random] 使用操作系统 CSPRNG 生成安全随机字节。data_length 指定字节数（1-128），返回 data_in_hex 十六进制字符串。返回字段：data_in_hex（随机数据 Hex 编码）、data_length（实际字节数）。
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data_length | Yes | 随机数据字节数（整数，1~128） |
CipherHUB Cryptography Toolkit
TDQS
A4/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the source (OS CSPRNG), output encoding (Hex), and length limit. However, it does not mention error behavior on invalid input or other edge cases, leaving some behavioral opacity.
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 compact sentences that front-load the core purpose with a '[random]' tag, followed by parameter and return field details. No filler or redundant information.
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?
The description covers purpose, parameter, and return fields, which is sufficient for a simple one-parameter tool without an output schema. It lacks error-handling details but is otherwise complete.
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 coverage is 100% with a description already covering the byte count range (1-128). The tool description repeats this and adds return field semantics, adding marginal value beyond the schema but not significantly clarifying parameter meaning.
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 it 'generates secure random bytes using OS CSPRNG' with a specific verb and resource, and specifies the data_length range and return format. This distinguishes it from sibling key generation and crypto operation 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?
The description implies usage for generating random byte strings via '[random]' and details the length and output format. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the sibling context makes its purpose clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
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.