io.github.daedalus/mcp-cryptography

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.1
Disambiguation4/5
Tools are generally distinct, but generate_symmetric_key and generate_random_bytes both produce random data, which could cause confusion; however, descriptions clarify their purposes.
Naming Consistency3/5
Naming conventions vary: some tools use verb_noun (generate_symmetric_key), others use algorithm_verb (fernet_encrypt, aes_encrypt), and hash_sha256 mixes verb and algorithm. Inconsistency reduces predictability.
Tool Count4/5
22 tools cover a broad cryptography domain; while slightly above the typical 3-15 range, each tool has a clear purpose and the count is justified.
Completeness4/5
Major cryptographic operations are covered: symmetric/asymmetric encryption, hashing, signing, key derivation, certificates. Missing modern algorithms like Ed25519 or ECDSA are minor gaps.
Average 3.9/5 across 22 of 22 tools scored. Lowest: 3.2/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on April 9, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is failing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses the basic operation (decrypt with private key) but does not mention potential side effects like padding scheme requirements, error behavior on invalid keys or ciphertext, or whether the operation is idempotent.
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?
The description is concise, using a clear one-line summary followed by Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant information.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, output schema exists), the description is adequate but not thorough. It explains the return value as 'Decrypted string' but omits details about the output encoding or potential failures. For a cryptographic tool, more safety context would be beneficial.
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?
The input schema has 0% description coverage. The description adds meaning by clarifying that private_key_pem must be in PEM format and ciphertext is Base64-encoded. This compensates partially but remains minimal (no format details for PEM, no specification of key length).
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 'Decrypt RSA ciphertext using private key,' specifying a precise action and resource. Among sibling tools like rsa_encrypt, rsa_sign, and rsa_verify, this distinguishes itself by focusing on decryption only.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., fernet_decrypt, aes_decrypt). It does not mention prerequisites, such as the need for a prior encryption step, or any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description indicates it computes a hash and returns a hex-encoded string, but lacks details on string encoding (e.g., UTF-8) or deterministic behavior. Since no annotations exist, the description carries the full burden but is adequate for a simple hash tool.
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 very concise, with a clear three-line format including Args and Returns. Every sentence serves a purpose with no redundancy.
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?
For a simple hash function, the description covers the essential information: input (string to hash) and output (hex-encoded hash). It is complete given the low complexity and existence of an output schema.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds the meaning that 'data' is a string to hash. This is minimal but sufficient given the single parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Compute SHA-512 hash' and mentions the input and output format. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like hash_sha256 or hash_sha1, though the name itself provides the distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use SHA-512 versus other hash functions, nor are there any context or alternatives mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Fails to disclose error behavior on malformed input, validation steps, or whether certificate chain is verified. Merely lists output fields.
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?
Two sentences plus a list – efficient and readable. Could be better structured with explicit error/return sections, but overall clear.
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?
Covers basic functionality, input, and output. Missing error handling and validation details. Since output schema is implied by description, it's adequate but not comprehensive.
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 has 0% coverage, but description adds 'Certificate in PEM format' clarifying input format. Also lists return fields, providing essential semantic context beyond 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?
Clearly states 'Parse X.509 certificate' with specific verb and resource. Distinguishes well from sibling tools which focus on key generation and cryptographic operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not mention prerequisites like certificate validity or error scenarios. Lacks context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present. The description does not disclose important behavioral details such as whether the function is deterministic (if no salt), default cost parameters (N, r, p), or security implications. It omits side effects and mutation behavior.
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 minimal and well-structured with a title, Args section, and Returns section. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy.
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?
The description explains the return value (dictionary with derived_key and salt) adequately for a simple key derivation. However, it lacks details on Scrypt parameters (N, r, p) and how the salt is generated when omitted, which are important for security context.
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 0%, but the description explains both parameters: 'password' as the input to derive from and 'salt' as optional hex-encoded string. It adds value beyond the schema types, though it could include constraints like length or encoding requirements.
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 'Derive key using Scrypt.' as the action and algorithm. It specifies the function (key derivation) and the method (Scrypt), distinguishing it from siblings like hash functions or PBKDF2.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidelines are provided on when to use Scrypt versus alternatives like pbkdf2_derive. The description lacks context for selection, such as security requirements or performance considerations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a dictionary with PEM-encoded certificate and private key, which is adequate for a generation tool. However, it does not specify the key algorithm or any side effects, leaving some ambiguity.
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?
The description is concise, using an Args/Returns format that is easy to parse. It includes only essential information without redundancy. Could be slightly more concise by removing the structured format, but it is efficient overall.
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 description covers the return format (dict with certificate and private key), and the output schema exists to further detail return structure. For a tool with three parameters, this provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke it correctly. Missing details like key algorithm are minor.
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?
Despite a context signal of 0% schema coverage, the description provides meaningful explanations for all three parameters: common_name, organization (optional), and days_valid (default 365). This adds value beyond the schema, clarifying usage and defaults.
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 explicitly states 'Generate a self-signed X.509 certificate,' using a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like generate_rsa_key or parse_certificate, which serve different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as generate_rsa_key or other certificate-related tools. The description lacks explicit context for selecting this tool over siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description fairly discloses the core behavior (random bytes, base64 encoding) and default length. However, it omits details on cryptographic security, randomness source, or suitability for cryptographic keys.
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?
Very concise: two sentences plus a docstring with args/returns. Front-loaded with action, no wasted words.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity and existence of an output schema (not shown), the description covers the main functionality and return type. Could be improved by noting security properties, but adequate.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the 'length' parameter as number of bytes and default 32, adding meaning beyond the schema's type and default.
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 the tool generates random bytes encoded as base64, with a specific verb 'Generate' and resource 'random bytes encoded as base64'. It distinguishes from sibling 'generate_random_bytes' by specifying the encoding.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like 'generate_random_bytes' or other key generation tools. The description does not mention exclusions or preferred contexts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description states 'Returns: Base64-encoded signature' but does not disclose internal behavior (e.g., whether it hashes data first, key size requirements, or error conditions). Adequate for a simple operation but lacks depth.
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 very concise, using clear section headers (Args, Returns). Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
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?
For a simple signing tool, the description covers purpose, inputs, and output. With an output schema indicated, the return format is explained. Lacks edge cases or error handling, but is mostly complete.
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 description coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning to both parameters: 'RSA private key in PEM format' for private_key_pem and 'String to sign' for data. This provides semantic value beyond the schema types.
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 'Create RSA digital signature' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like rsa_verify and rsa_encrypt by explicitly focusing on signing. Parameters and return value are also explained.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings include verification and other cryptographic operations, but no context is given for choosing rsa_sign over them. Only implied usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key requirements (hex-encoded, specific lengths), mode options (CBC/GCM), return format (ciphertext and iv as hex), and error behavior (ValueError for invalid key size). It is transparent about the operation and constraints.
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?
The description is structured as a docstring with Args, Returns, Raises sections. It is appropriately concise—every sentence adds value—though not the absolute minimum. It is easy for an AI agent to parse.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 params, no output schema but described), the description is complete. It covers input requirements, mode options, return values, and possible errors. Minor missing details like padding scheme or IV generation are not critical.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description adds vital meaning: key is hex-encoded AES key of 16/24/32 bytes, data is string to encrypt, mode is 'CBC' or 'GCM' with default. This compensates for the empty schema properties.
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 explicitly states 'Encrypt data using AES.' This clearly identifies the action (encrypt) and the resource/algorithm (AES). It distinguishes from sibling tools like aes_decrypt and other encryption algorithms.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rsa_encrypt or fernet_encrypt. The description does not include any 'when to use' or 'when not to use' context, which is needed given the many sibling encryption tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions hex-encoded output but does not disclose if bytes are cryptographically secure or other characteristics.
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?
Extremely concise with a clear structure: description, args, returns, example. Every sentence is informative and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description fully covers purpose, usage, and output format. No gaps remain.
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 0%, but the description explains the 'length' parameter meaning ('Number of bytes to generate') and shows example usage, adding semantic value beyond the schema's type and default.
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 'Generate random bytes' with a specific verb and resource, and it is distinct from sibling key generation and encryption tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like generate_random_base64. Only an example is given, lacking explicit usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility. It clearly states that the tool returns a dictionary with 'public_key' and 'private_key' in PEM format, which is sufficient for a simple key generation tool. No side effects or hidden behaviors are needed.
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?
The description is concise, with one sentence for purpose, a return format note, and an example. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity, though could be slightly more compact.
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 description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, return format, and example. Given zero parameters and an output schema, it is complete. However, it lacks any mention of when to prefer this over siblings, which is minor.
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?
The input schema has zero parameters and 100% coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable since none exist.
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 the tool generates an X25519 key pair for key exchange, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like generate_rsa_key and generate_symmetric_key by specifying the algorithm and purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to use X25519 over RSA or symmetric key generation, nor does it include any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the input is a string and output is hex-encoded hash, and adds a security note about SHA-1 being broken. This is adequate but lacks details like idempotency or potential errors.
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 very concise: a one-sentence purpose, a note, and a simple args/returns list. Every sentence is necessary and front-loaded.
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?
For a simple one-parameter tool, the description covers the core functionality, output format, and a security consideration. It is nearly complete, though it could mention the output length.
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?
The description explains the 'data' parameter as 'String to hash', adding clear meaning beyond the bare schema. Given 0% schema coverage, this is valuable.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Compute SHA-1 hash' and includes a note about SHA-1 being broken and for legacy compatibility, which distinguishes it from modern hash functions like hash_sha256 and hash_sha512.
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 note explicitly says 'Use only for legacy compatibility', providing clear context on when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives for modern use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains optional salt generation and default iterations, but fails to mention that PBKDF2 is compute-intensive or any security considerations.
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 uses a clear docstring format with Args and Returns sections. Every sentence is informative and well-structured, with no wasted words.
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?
Given the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers inputs and basic behavior. It omits details like the output structure beyond the dictionary keys, but that is acceptable.
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 add meaning. It explains that salt is hex-encoded and optional (auto-generated), and that iterations default to 480000 (OWASP recommended). This goes beyond the schema types and defaults.
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 'Derive key using PBKDF2.' It specifies the exact cryptographic algorithm and the action. The sibling tools include scrypt_derive and various hash functions, making the purpose distinct.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like scrypt_derive. It mentions the OWASP-recommended iteration count but does not compare against other key derivation functions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the return format (PEM-encoded keys) and that ValueError is raised for invalid key_size, but does not disclose any side effects, performance considerations, or security implications.
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 brief with clear sections (Args, Returns, Raises) and no redundant information. Every sentence is necessary and adds value.
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?
For a simple tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essentials: purpose, parameter details, return format, and error condition. It is sufficiently complete for basic use.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates well by explaining key_size is in bits, defaults to 2048, and has a minimum constraint. Adds useful context beyond the raw 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 'Generate an RSA key pair', specifying both the action and resource. Among siblings like generate_symmetric_key and generate_x25519_key, it uniquely identifies RSA key generation.
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?
Provides constraints on the key_size parameter (must be at least 2048) and default value, but does not explicitly state when to use RSA over other key generation tools or any context for choosing key sizes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states input format (string or base64-encoded bytes) and output format (hex-encoded hash). It does not disclose error behavior or side effects, but for a pure hash function, the transparency is sufficient and adds value beyond what schema alone provides.
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 extremely concise, using just four lines: purpose, Args, Returns, and Example. It is front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, simple output) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essentials. It explains input and output, provides an example, and defines the behavior. Minor omission: no mention of it being a pure function or idempotent, but not critical.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'data' parameter as 'String or base64-encoded bytes to hash,' which adds semantic meaning. The return value and example further clarify usage. This adequately fills the gap left by 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 explicitly states 'Compute SHA-256 hash,' clearly identifying the verb (compute) and resource (SHA-256 hash). Among sibling tools like hash_sha512 and hash_sha1, the name and description distinguish this tool by specifying the algorithm.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use SHA-256 versus other hash algorithms (e.g., SHA-512 or SHA-1). The description does not provide any context for selection or alternatives, relying solely on the tool name and sibling list for differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It mentions OAEP padding and a ValueError for oversized data, but does not state that OAEP makes encryption non-deterministic (ciphertext varies), which could affect usage. It also omits details on key validation or encoding of the input data. The description covers basics but lacks some behavioral nuance.
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 and well-structured: purpose in the first line, followed by Args, Returns, and Raises sections. Every sentence adds value, and the information is front-loaded. No wasted words.
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?
Given the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description covers inputs, output format, and error handling. It lacks details on the OAEP hash algorithm and support for different key sizes, but these are secondary. For a cryptographic tool, it is fairly complete and sufficient for typical use.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains both parameters: public_key_pem as 'RSA public key in PEM format' and data as 'String to encrypt (max ~446 bytes for 4096-bit key)'. This adds crucial format and size constraints beyond the schema's type-only definitions. Could further specify encoding (e.g., UTF-8), but current detail is strong.
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 'Encrypt data using RSA with OAEP asymmetric_padding', specifying the algorithm and padding scheme. This distinguishes it well from siblings like rsa_decrypt, aes_encrypt, and fernet_encrypt, and uses a specific verb+resource.
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?
The description provides a maximum data size limit for a 4096-bit key, giving some usage context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use RSA over symmetric encryption or other asymmetric tools like rsa_sign, which is critical given the many sibling tools. The guidance is implied from the size limit but not made explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that inputs must be hex-encoded, mode options, and that it raises ValueError for invalid key size, which is sufficient for a pure function with no side effects.
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 well-structured with Args, Returns, Raises sections, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence provides value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the output schema exists and the description explains parameters, return value, and error condition, it is complete for a decryption tool.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description adds essential meaning: specifying hex-encoding, mode options, and default value, which the schema lacks.
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 'Decrypt AES ciphertext' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like aes_encrypt and other decryption tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, such as symmetric vs asymmetric decryption, or prerequisites like key generation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses the output type and length, includes an example illustrating typical usage. No annotations exist, so description compensates well by clarifying the return value and the 32-byte key size.
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?
Highly concise with a front-loaded purpose statement followed by a clear description of the return format and a helpful example. Every sentence is meaningful and efficient.
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?
For a zero-parameter tool with an output schema, the description provides necessary detail (purpose, output format, example). Could add a note on usage context (e.g., for symmetric encryption), but overall complete.
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?
No parameters; input schema coverage is 100%. Description adds value with an example showing how to call the function and confirming the output length, exceeding the baseline of 4.
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?
Clearly states it generates a Fernet symmetric key and specifies the output format (Base64-encoded 32-byte key). Distinguishes from sibling tools like generate_rsa_key and generate_x25519_key by naming the algorithm.
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?
Implies usage for symmetric key generation but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like generate_rsa_key or generate_random_bytes. No when-not or context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Despite no annotations, the description fully discloses inputs (hex-encoded key, data, algorithm), output (hex-encoded HMAC), and provides an example. It's a pure function without side effects, so little else needed.
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?
Description is brief, structured with Args/Returns/Example, front-loads purpose. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple deterministic HMAC function, the description covers all aspects: inputs, output format, default behavior, and example. No gaps remain given tool simplicity and presence of output schema implicitly (hex string).
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 coverage is 0%, but the description adds complete semantic meaning: key format (hex-encoded), data role (string to sign), algorithm values (sha256 or sha512) with default. This fully compensates for missing schema descriptions.
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 explicitly states 'Generate HMAC' with a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like hmac_verify (verification) and hash_sha256 (hashing without key).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like rsa_sign or hmac_verify. The agent receives no hints about prerequisites, symmetric vs asymmetric, or comparison with siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description outlines the inputs, algorithm choices, and return value clearly, but lacks additional behavioral context such as error handling or security implications.
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?
The description is concise but includes a docstring-style parameter list that could be streamlined; still clear and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema (return value), the description fully covers inputs, algorithm, and behavior, leaving no gaps.
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?
With 0% schema coverage, the description adds essential meaning: specifying hex-encoded key and hmac, the data string, and algorithm options, significantly aiding correct invocation.
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 'Verify HMAC' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like hmac_sign and rsa_verify.
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 context is implied but not explicitly stated; no guidance on when to use or when not, and no mention of sibling alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description fully bears the burden. It clearly states the return value (true if valid) and specifies the required inputs. Missing explicit mention of returning false for invalid signatures, but the overall behavior is transparent.
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 extremely concise, using a clear Args/Returns structure with no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple verification tool with 3 parameters and a boolean output, the description covers all essential aspects: inputs, formats, and return condition. No missing information.
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 0%, but the description adds significant meaning: it explains public_key_pem format (PEM), data (original signed data), and signature (Base64-encoded). This goes beyond the schema's type-only specification.
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 'Verify RSA digital signature', using a specific verb and resource. It immediately distinguishes from sibling tools like rsa_sign, rsa_encrypt, and rsa_decrypt by focusing on verification.
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?
The description explains what the tool does but does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance or comparisons with alternatives like hmac_verify. The usage is implied rather than explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description covers return type and exception on invalid token. Does not mention side effects, but decryption is inherently non-destructive.
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?
Concise, structured with Args/Returns/Raises sections, no redundant information, every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given simple tool with 2 parameters and output schema present, description fully covers usage, return, and error case. No gaps.
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 has 0% description coverage, but description clearly explains both parameters are Base64-encoded, adding essential meaning beyond bare type information.
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?
Clearly states 'Decrypt Fernet ciphertext,' specifying verb and resource. Differentiates from fernet_encrypt sibling.
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?
Implicitly suggests use when decryption is needed, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. Sibling tools provide context but no direct exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It specifies encryption operation, input/output formats (Base64-encoded key, plain text, Base64 ciphertext), and includes an example. It does not detail error handling or key validation, but is sufficient for typical use.
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 with clear sections (Args, Returns, Example). Every sentence adds value, no redundancy, and the core purpose is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite lack of schema descriptions and annotations, the description provides all necessary details: input format, output format, and a concrete example. Output schema exists, so return values are covered. Enough for correct tool invocation.
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 has 0% coverage for parameter descriptions. The description fully compensates by explaining that 'key' is a Base64-encoded Fernet key and 'data' is plain text to encrypt, adding essential meaning beyond the bare string type.
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 'Encrypt data using Fernet symmetric encryption', specifying the verb, resource, and algorithm. It distinguishes from siblings like RSA and AES encryption by naming Fernet.
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?
The description implies usage through the example but does not explicitly guide when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., AES vs Fernet), nor does it state prerequisites 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.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-cryptography MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/daedalus/mcp-cryptography/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/daedalus/mcp-cryptography)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-cryptography MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/daedalus/mcp-cryptography/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/daedalus/mcp-cryptography)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/daedalus/mcp-cryptography'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server