Sign UTF-8 text with ML-DSA-44
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": {
"message": "<message>",
"privateKeyHex": "<privateKeyHex>"
},
"name": "veya_pq_sign"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message | Yes | ||
| privateKeyHex | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It names the algorithm but says nothing about output format (hex signature?), the expected encoding of privateKeyHex, or whether signatures are randomized (ML-DSA is non-deterministic) — all critical for a crypto operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is terse to the point of under-specification, but nothing is redundant.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, a one-line description is not enough for a signing tool. An agent cannot infer the key format, output format, or encoding requirements needed to call it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% for both required parameters. The description's 'UTF-8 text' gives partial meaning to the message field, but privateKeyHex's expected encoding and format are left entirely unexplained in both schema and description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (Sign), resource (UTF-8 text) and algorithm (ML-DSA-44), which cleanly distinguishes it from sibling veya_pq_verify and veya_pq_keygen. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as veya_pq_verify for the reverse operation. Usage is only implied by the verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.