Skip to main content
Glama

CipherHUB Cryptography Toolkit

by io.github.bowenerchen

ml_kem_decap

[pqc_kem] 使用 ML-KEM 私钥执行密钥解封装（FIPS 203）。 【算法】ML-KEM-512 / ML-KEM-768 / ML-KEM-1024。 【参数】

  • algorithm：必须与 keygen/encap 一致

  • secret_key_in_hex：ml_kem_keygen 返回的私钥 hex

  • ciphertext_in_hex：ml_kem_encap 返回的密文 hex 【输出】shared_secret_in_hex、shared_secret_in_base64、shared_secret_sha256、shared_secret_bytes、algorithm。 【安全特性】若密文被篡改，ML-KEM Implicit Rejection 不抛异常，返回确定性伪随机值（IND-CCA2 安全），不泄露私钥信息。 【完整流程】keygen → encap(pub) → decap(sk, ct) → 双方 shared_secret 一致

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
algorithmNo密码算法名称（具体可选值因工具而异，见工具描述）ML-KEM-768
ciphertext_in_hexNoML-KEM 密文的十六进制字符串
secret_key_in_hexNoML-KEM 私钥的十六进制字符串

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses key behavioral traits: implicit rejection on tampered ciphertext (returns deterministic pseudo-random value, no exception), IND-CCA2 security, and no private key leakage. It also explicitly lists all output fields. This is rich behavioral context that goes well beyond the schema.

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 well-structured with clear sections for algorithm, parameters, output, security, and full process. Every sentence adds value, and the purpose is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description enumerates all output fields and covers algorithm variants, parameter origins, security behavior, and the overall workflow. This is complete enough for an agent to understand and use the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds critical provenance semantics: it specifies that algorithm must match keygen/encap, secret_key_in_hex comes from ml_kem_keygen, and ciphertext_in_hex from ml_kem_encap. This greatly aids correct tool invocation.

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 explicitly states the tool performs key decapsulation using an ML-KEM private key (FIPS 203), naming the specific algorithms (ML-KEM-512/768/1024). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ml_kem_encap and ml_kem_keygen.

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 the complete flow (keygen → encap → decap) and states that parameters must align with keygen/encap outputs. This gives clear context for when to use the tool, though it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives.

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