io.github.daedalus/mcp-cryptography

by daedalus

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

generate_random_base64

Generate a base64-encoded string of random bytes. Specify the number of bytes (default 32) for varied lengths.

Instructions

Generate random bytes encoded as base64.

Args: length: Number of bytes to generate (default 32).

Returns: Base64-encoded random string.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "generate_random_base64"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`length`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

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.