io.github.daedalus/mcp-cryptography

by daedalus

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

generate_random_bytes

Generate cryptographically secure random bytes in hex format. Specify the number of bytes needed for keys or nonces.

Instructions

Generate random bytes.

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

Returns: Hex-encoded random bytes.

Example: >>> generate_random_bytes(16) 'a1b2c3d4e5f6...'

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_bytes"
  }
}

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

A3.9/5.0

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.