io.github.daedalus/mcp-cryptography

by daedalus

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

pbkdf2_derive

Derive a cryptographic key from a password using PBKDF2 with configurable iterations and optional salt generation.

Instructions

Derive key using PBKDF2.

Args: password: Password to derive from. salt: Hex-encoded salt (optional, will generate if not provided). iterations: Number of iterations (default 480000, OWASP recommended).

Returns: Dictionary with 'derived_key' (hex) and 'salt' (hex).

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": {
      "password": "<password>"
    },
    "name": "pbkdf2_derive"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`salt`	No
`password`	Yes
`iterations`	No

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

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.