Skip to main content
Glama

CipherHUB Cryptography Toolkit

by io.github.bowenerchen

rsa_verify

[rsa] RSA 公钥验签。 【参数】

  • rsa_public_key_in_pem：PEM 格式公钥

  • data_in_hex：原始数据 Hex

  • signature_in_hex：签名 Hex

  • rsa_sign_padding_mode：必须与签名时一致

  • rsa_sign_raw_data_mode：必须与签名时一致 【输出】verified（bool，True=验签通过）。

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

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Description discloses the output format 'verified (bool, True=验签通过)' and the matching constraint. With no annotations, it does not describe behavior on invalid input (e.g., whether exceptions are thrown or simply returns False).

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, using a bulleted list to organize parameters and output. It contains no redundant prose and is easily scannable.

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 tool is relatively simple and all parameters are documented in the schema. The description provides the output type and key constraints, but lacks explicit error handling or return-code details. Given no output schema, it partially compensates with the bool output note.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage, but the description adds a critical constraint that rsa_sign_padding_mode and rsa_sign_raw_data_mode must match the signing parameters, which is not in the schema. It also succinctly restates each parameter's purpose.

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?

Description clearly states 'RSA 公钥验签' (RSA public key signature verification), which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like rsa_sign (signing) and ecc_key_verify/sm2_verify (other algorithms).

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?

The description notes that padding mode and raw data mode '必须与签名时一致' (must match signing time), which is important usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over other verification tools (e.g., ecc_key_verify, sm2_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