io.github.daedalus/mcp-cryptography

by daedalus

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

parse_certificate

Parse an X.509 certificate in PEM format to extract its subject, issuer, and validity dates.

Instructions

Parse X.509 certificate.

Args: certificate_pem: Certificate in PEM format.

Returns: Dictionary with 'subject', 'issuer', 'not_valid_before', 'not_valid_after'.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "certificate_pem": "<certificate_pem>"
    },
    "name": "parse_certificate"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`certificate_pem`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

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.