Skip to main content
Glama

CipherHUB Cryptography Toolkit

by io.github.bowenerchen

rsa_sign

[rsa] RSA 私钥签名。 【参数】

  • rsa_private_key_in_pem：PEM 格式私钥

  • data_in_hex：待签数据 Hex

  • rsa_sign_padding_mode：RSA_SIGN_PKCS1_V1_5_SHA{1,224,256,384,512} 或 RSA_SIGN_PSS_SHA{1,224,256,384,512}

  • rsa_sign_raw_data_mode：True=对原文签名（内部先哈希），False=data_in_hex 已是摘要值

  • password：若私钥有密码保护则传入 【输出】signature_in_hex、signature_length。 【安全建议】推荐 PSS 而非 PKCS1v1.5。

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
passwordNo私钥的加密密码（原始字符串，非编码格式）
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
rsa_sign_padding_modeNoRSA 签名填充模式，可选值：RSA_SIGN_PKCS1_V1_5_SHA1 / SHA224 / SHA256 / SHA384 / SHA512 或 RSA_SIGN_PSS_SHA1 / SHA224 / SHA256 / SHA384 / SHA512
rsa_private_key_in_pemNoRSA 私钥的 PEM 文本（含 BEGIN/END 头尾的 Base64 编码文本）
rsa_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

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It reveals key behaviors: internal hashing based on rsa_sign_raw_data_mode, password handling, and output fields. It does not discuss error cases or side effects, but as a signing operation the essentials are covered.

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-organized into sections for parameters, output, and security advice. It is dense but not padded, with each line contributing useful information. The parameter list duplicates schema content, but the structure aids readability.

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 5-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers all parameters, lists output names, and adds a security guideline. It could specify signature_length units or error behaviors, but overall it gives sufficient context for correct invocation.

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 restates parameter meanings with minor shorthand (e.g., padding enum list) but adds little semantic value beyond the schema's own descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool performs RSA private key signing ('RSA 私钥签名'), specifying the verb and resource. It is unambiguous and distinct from verification or other signing schemes, though it does not explicitly compare against siblings like rsa_verify or sm2_sign.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides a security recommendation to prefer PSS over PKCS1v1.5 and explains raw data mode, which guides usage. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use rsa_sign instead of other signing tools (e.g., ecc_key_sign, sm2_sign), relying mostly on the tool name for differentiation.

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