Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
apc-agent

apc-agent

by J8k3
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

generate_as2805_kek_validation

Generate AS2805 Key Encryption Key validation values for Australian payment network node-to-node key exchange, supporting validation request or response types and AS2805 variant masks.

Instructions

Call this when implementing Australian AS2805 payment network key exchange — generating the KEK validation request or response value for node-to-node symmetric key establishment between an acquirer switch and a card scheme.

Generate an AS2805 Key Encryption Key validation value. Used in Australian payment network node-to-node key exchange.

kek_validation_type: KekValidationRequest — initiating node generates a validation request KekValidationResponse — responding node generates the validation response

random_key_send_variant_mask: VARIANT_MASK_82C0 — standard AS2805 variant mask VARIANT_MASK_82 — alternate AS2805 variant mask

Args: key_identifier: ARN or alias of the AS2805 KEK kek_validation_type: KekValidationRequest or KekValidationResponse random_key_send_variant_mask: VARIANT_MASK_82C0 or VARIANT_MASK_82

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": {
      "key_identifier": "<key_identifier>",
      "kek_validation_type": "<kek_validation_type>",
      "random_key_send_variant_mask": "<random_key_send_variant_mask>"
    },
    "name": "generate_as2805_kek_validation"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
key_identifierYes
kek_validation_typeYes
random_key_send_variant_maskYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.2.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It clearly states that the tool generates a request or response value and documents the relevant variants, but it does not disclose whether the operation has side effects, what it returns, or any output encoding. This is a notable gap for a cryptographic generation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded and logically structured, but the second paragraph repeats information from the first: 'Australian payment network' and 'node-to-node key exchange' appear twice. Trim redundancy would make it tighter.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Parameter semantics and usage context are well covered, but there is no output schema and the description does not describe the return value format or any operation caveats. For a tool whose entire purpose is generating a validation value, the lack of return-value detail leaves a meaningful gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It does: every parameter is explained, including the ARN/alias meaning of key_identifier and the exact enumerated values and meanings for kek_validation_type and random_key_send_variant_mask.

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 names a specific operation and deliverable: generating an AS2805 Key Encryption Key validation value for node-to-node key exchange. It clearly differentiates this tool from sibling operations like generate_mac or generate_card_validation_data by specifying the exact cryptographic domain and output.

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 opens with an explicit 'Call this when implementing Australian AS2805 payment network key exchange', giving clear contextual guidance. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the intended use case is unambiguous.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools