Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@@erickwendel/ciphersuite-mcp Encrypt 'Hello World' with passphrase 'secret'"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
An MCP (Model Context Protocol) server that provides AES-256-CBC encryption and decryption tools, a resource describing the algorithm, and ready-to-use prompts — all runnable directly inside VS Code Copilot Chat.
Capability | Name | Description |
🔧 Tool |
| Encrypts any plain-text message with a passphrase |
🔧 Tool |
| Decrypts a previously encrypted message with the same passphrase |
📄 Resource |
| Returns details about the algorithm, key derivation, and output format |
💬 Prompt |
| Pre-built prompt that asks the agent to encrypt a message |
💬 Prompt |
| Pre-built prompt that asks the agent to decrypt a message |
Algorithm: AES-256-CBC
Key derivation: scrypt(passphrase, fixedSalt, 32) — you pass any passphrase string; the server derives a strong 32-byte key automatically
Output format: <IV in hex>:<ciphertext in hex> — keep the full string to decrypt later
IV: a fresh random 16-byte IV is generated on every encryption call, so the same message encrypted twice produces different output
Related MCP server: cryptoseed-mcp
Node.js v24+ (see engines in package.json)
npm installNo build step is needed — the server runs TypeScript directly via Node.js native TypeScript support.
Create (or open) .vscode/mcp.json in your workspace and add:
{
"servers": {
"ciphersuite-mcp": {
"command": "node",
"args": ["--experimental-strip-types", "ABSOLUTE_PATH_TO_PROJECT/src/index.ts"]
}
}
}or via npm
{
"servers": {
"ciphersuite-mcp": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "@erickwendel/ciphersuite-mcp"]
}
}
}Tip: You can also add this server to your user-level MCP config at
~/.vscode/mcp.jsonto make it available in every workspace.
Open the Command Palette (Cmd+Shift+P) and run Developer: Reload Window (or just restart VS Code).
Open Copilot Chat (Agent mode) and try:
Encrypt the message "Hello, World!" using the passphrase "my-secret-key"Decrypt this message: a3f1...:<ciphertext> using the passphrase "my-secret-key"Show me the encryption://info resourceThe agent will automatically call the appropriate tool and return the result.
The MCP Inspector lets you explore and test all tools, resources, and prompts interactively in a browser UI:
npm run mcp:inspectThis opens the inspector at http://localhost:5173 and connects it to the running server.
# Run all tests once
npm test
# Run tests in watch mode (with debugger)
npm run test:devThe test suite covers:
Encrypting a message
Decrypting a message with the correct passphrase
Listing and reading the encryption://info resource
Fetching both prompts
Error: decrypting with the wrong passphrase
Error: decrypting a malformed ciphertext
src/
index.ts # Entry point — connects the server to stdio transport
mcp.ts # All tools, resources, and prompts are registered here
tests/
mcp.test.tsScript | Description |
| Start the server (used by MCP clients) |
| Start with file-watch and Node.js inspector |
| Run all tests |
| Run tests in watch mode |
| Open the MCP Inspector UI |
Decrypts an encrypted message
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| encryptionKey | Yes | The key to use for decryption | |
| encryptedMessage | Yes | The encrypted message to be decrypted |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| decryptedMessage | Yes | The decrypted message |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the core function and omits critical details like error behavior on wrong key, required encryption format, or whether the operation is reversible. This is a significant gap for a decryption tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It is maximally concise and easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema and full parameter documentation, the description provides no contextual guidance about the expected decrypted output, failure modes, or security considerations. A decryption tool needs more context to be used correctly, especially in an agentic setting.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides full descriptions for both parameters (encryptedMessage and encryptionKey), covering 100% of the parameter semantics. The description adds no extra information beyond what the schema already conveys, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's action (decrypting) and resource (encrypted message), which distinguishes it from the sibling encrypt_message. However, it is very close to the tool name itself, adding little specificity beyond that.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for decryption but does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over the encrypt_message sibling, nor does it state any prerequisites such as needing the correct key. The context is clear but not elaborated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Encrypts a message
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| message | Yes | The message to be encrypted | |
| encryptionKey | Yes | The key to use for encryption |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| encryptedMessage | Yes | The encrypted message (format: iv:ciphertext) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only states that encryption occurs, without disclosing algorithm, key requirements, reversibility, side effects, or output format. This is minimal behavioral information.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with no unnecessary words. It earns its place by stating the purpose, though it ends with a trailing space and lacks broader structural enhancement.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and complete schema, the description is minimally adequate. An output schema exists so return values are covered elsewhere. However, no additional context about usage, security implications, or relationship to the sibling is provided.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both 'message' and 'encryptionKey', so the schema already fully documents the parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states a specific verb 'Encrypts' and resource 'message', clearly distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'decrypt_message' which performs the opposite operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by the name and description rather than explicitly stated. No mention of when to use encrypt_message vs the sibling decrypt_message, though the opposite operation makes it somewhat apparent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.1decrypt_messageencrypt_messageScored across 2 tools
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one encrypts and one decrypts. No overlap or ambiguity exists between them.
Both tool names follow the same verb_noun pattern: encrypt_message and decrypt_message. This is consistent and predictable.
With only 2 tools, the server feels thin for the scope of a cipher suite. It is borderline, as the tools are focused but minimal.
The server covers the basic encrypt/decrypt lifecycle, but lacks key management, algorithm selection, or other common cipher operations. For a cipher suite, this is a minimal surface.
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
LLM Orchestration Agent (Cryptography)
Secure P2P File Transfer, Encrypted Chat & Communication | Decentralized P2P & AES-256-GCM encryption | Zero cloud logs. Zero registration. For humans and autonomous AI agents / MCP servers.
Encrypted LangChain Session Agent
Search your AI chat history (ChatGPT, Claude, Codex) from any MCP client. Remote, private, read-only
