Skip to main content
Glama

quantakrypto pqc-tools

by io.github.quantakrypto

explain_finding

Explain a quantakrypto finding and its post-quantum remediation. Provide a ruleId (e.g. 'forge-rsa-keygen', 'elliptic-ec', 'node-rsa', 'pem-ec-private-key') and/or an algorithm (e.g. 'RSA', 'ECDSA'). The ruleId is resolved against the core detector set, so library and config rules explain correctly.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ruleIdNoThe finding's rule id, matching a detector id prefix.
algorithmNoThe classical algorithm family involved (e.g. RSA, ECDH, ECDSA).

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It adds a useful detail about ruleId resolution against the core detector set, but it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or describe return values, leaving some gaps.

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 concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value without unnecessary fluff.

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 simple: no output schema, two optional parameters. The description sufficiently covers purpose and parameters, though a brief note on return value would improve completeness, but it's not essential.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the description enriches both parameters with concrete examples and explains the ruleId resolution behavior, adding value beyond the schema.

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 a specific action (explain) on a specific resource (quantakrypto finding) and its remediation, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like remediate_findings or get_fix_examples.

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 when to use the tool (to explain findings) and gives parameter guidance ('Provide a ruleId and/or an algorithm'), but it does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it.

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

All quantakrypto pqc-tools 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target distinct parts of the PQC remediation workflow (explain, triage, fix, verify), but verify_fix and apply_verified_patch have overlapping purposes: both check code for remaining classical crypto. The latter adds patch-policy and blast-radius gates, making the boundary somewhat blurry.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., list_rules, triage_findings, verify_fix). There are no mixed conventions or unpredictable naming variations.

Tool Count5/5

11 tools is well within the ideal range for a specialized toolkit. Each tool addresses a distinct step in the migration process: understanding, triaging, remediating, verifying, and scoring.

Completeness4/5

The set covers the core lifecycle: rule discovery, finding explanation, triage, remediation bundling, patch verification, and progress measurement. The only notable gap is that it relies on an external scan_path to provide findings—no scan tool is included—but this appears to be an intentional separation of concerns.

Resources