No user-submitted related servers found.
Scored across 5 tools
Each tool's description explicitly delimits its scope and cross-references the alternatives (export_cbom vs scan_repo, compare_coverage vs prove_closure, list_algorithms vs scan_repo). The export_cbom/scan_repo pair is the closest overlap, but the 'machine-readable artefact vs human/agent reading' distinction is spelled out unambiguously. An agent could select correctly from names alone, and the descriptions remove the remaining doubt.
All five names use a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (export_cbom, scan_repo, compare_coverage, list_algorithms, prove_closure). The verbs are distinct and meaningful, and no convention mixing appears anywhere in the set.
Five tools is tightly scoped for a cryptographic inventory server: scan, export, algorithm reference, coverage comparison, and closure proof. Each tool covers a distinct operation with no filler, and the set is well within the 3-15 sweet spot.
The surface covers the full workflow of scan → export → compare conditions → prove closure, plus a static algorithm reference, with no dead ends in that chain. The one soft gap is that prove_closure reads 'two saved scans' but no tool emits a saveable scan artefact directly (export_cbom emits a CBOM, not a re-loadable scan), so persisting scan output relies on external serialization.