CyberChef MCP Server

cyberchef_list_operations

Read-onlyIdempotent

Explore CyberChef operations by category. View a one-line summary for each operation, then get full argument schemas for any operation.

Instructions

List the operations in one category, with a one-line summary of each. Use cyberchef_describe_operation for full argument schemas.

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": {
      "category": "<category>"
    },
    "name": "cyberchef_list_operations"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`category`	Yes	Category name, e.g. "Encryption / Encoding", "Hashing", "Extractors"

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`next`	Yes
`category`	Yes
`operations`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.6.0Sep 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying that results are one-line summaries and that deeper argument details are intentionally deferred to another tool, which shapes agent expectations beyond the annotations.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff: the first states the operation and output, the second routes to the relevant sibling. The most important scoping information is 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 read-only listing tool with one documented parameter and an output schema, the description covers what an agent needs to select and invoke it correctly. It also names the natural follow-up tool for richer detail.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single 'category' parameter is already documented with examples. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond restating the category concept, so it appropriately relies on the 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?

States a specific verb ('List'), a resource ('operations'), and a scoping dimension ('in one category') plus the output format (one-line summary). It also differentiates from cyberchef_describe_operation by explicitly directing full argument schema lookups there.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear usage context: use this tool for category-scoped operation lists with summaries. It names the alternative tool for a different need ('Use cyberchef_describe_operation for full argument schemas'), effectively telling the agent when not to use this tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.