io.github.daedalus/mcp-cryptography

by daedalus

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

generate_x25519_key

Generate an X25519 key pair for key exchange, returning public and private keys in PEM format.

Instructions

Generate an X25519 key pair for key exchange.

Returns: Dictionary with 'public_key' and 'private_key' in PEM format.

Example: >>> keys = generate_x25519_key() >>> len(keys['public_key']) > 0 True

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_x25519_key"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

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.