Privi Quantum

Post-quantum readiness package (government)

pqc_readiness_package

Build a signed post-quantum readiness package: prioritized migration list with the federal deadline for each asset (EO 14409, OMB M-26-15, NIST IR 8547 draft, CNSA 2.0), the nine M-26-15 plan elements marked as evidence or gaps, and a CycloneDX 1.6 CBOM. Signed with ML-DSA-87, anchored on chain, public report URL. Paid per call via x402 when payments are on (see quantum_pricing); failed calls are not charged.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "organization": "<organization>"
    },
    "name": "pqc_readiness_package"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`hva`	No	Is that system a High Value Asset (M-19-03)?
`files`	No	Code or config files to scan: [{name, content}] (up to 50 files, 1 MB)
`assets`	No	Cryptographic assets: [{system, asset, algorithm, usage (key_establishment\|signature\|encryption\|tls\|ssh\|vpn\|code_signing\|certificate\|hash\|other), protocol (e.g. 'TLS 1.2'), impact (high\|moderate\|low), hva (bool), sensitive_past_2030 (bool), owner, vendor, status, cnsa_category}]
`impact`	No	FIPS 199 impact of that system: high \| moderate \| low	unknown
`profile`	No	agency (OMB M-26-15) \| contractor (EO 14409 FAR items) \| nss_vendor (NSA CNSA 2.0)	agency
`pqc_lead`	No	Name of the PQC Migration Lead (M-26-15 governance)
`endpoints`	No	Public hostnames to check live for TLS 1.3 and hybrid post-quantum key exchange (up to 20), e.g. ['www.agency.gov']
`system_name`	No	System the scanned files belong to
`organization`	Yes	Agency, office or company name

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 26, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: output is signed with ML-DSA-87, anchored on chain, exposed via a public report URL, and billing is per-call via x402 with failed calls not charged. Those are real behavioral facts an agent cannot get from readOnlyHint/destructiveHint/idempotentHint alone. Minor gap: no indication that the endpoints parameter triggers live network probes to public hosts, which sits oddly with openWorldHint=false.

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?

Front-loaded with the deliverable, then the artifact breakdown, then signing/billing. The second sentence is a compressed run-on but every clause (signature algorithm, chain anchor, report URL, billing, no charge on failure) carries distinct 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?

With no output schema, the description does the necessary work by enumerating exactly what the package contains and how it is delivered (signed, anchored, public URL). It is nearly complete for a 9-parameter tool; the remaining gap is that it never states which inputs are needed to produce a meaningful package or what happens when assets/files/endpoints are omitted.

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 schema already documents all nine parameters including the asset object shape and profile enum values. The description adds no syntax or semantics about any individual parameter — it only describes the produced artifacts — so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource ("Build a signed post-quantum readiness package") followed by an enumerated artifact list: prioritized migration list with deadlines, nine M-26-15 plan elements, CycloneDX 1.6 CBOM. This clearly distinguishes it from narrower siblings like pqc_crypto_inventory, pqc_scan_code and pqc_federal_deadlines, which each produce a single component of this package.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the enumerated inputs (assets, files, endpoints) and deliverable make clear this is the aggregate/composite tool, and the payment note points to quantum_pricing. But there is no explicit "use this when you need the full deliverable; use pqc_crypto_inventory for a bare inventory" routing, and no prerequisites (e.g. does it require assets or endpoints to be useful) are given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Privi Quantum tools Inspect

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.