Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
hw-verify-mcp

hw-verify-mcp

by nickharris808
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

check_masking

Certifies a masked gadget first-order secure under glitch-free probing, or names the probe wire that recombines a secret. Accepts a bundled gadget name or JSON netlist.

Instructions

Certify a masked gadget first-order secure under glitch-free probing, or name the probe wire that recombines a secret. Accepts a bundled gadget name or a JSON netlist. Two certificates are tried: dependence (touches at most one share) and uniformity (a fresh mask always flips the wire).

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": {
      "gadget": "<gadget>"
    },
    "name": "check_masking"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
gadgetYesbundled gadget name, or a netlist spec object

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits. It explains the two certificate mechanisms (dependence and uniformity) and the failure output (naming the probe wire that recombines a secret). This goes beyond a simple 'checks security' statement and gives the agent a clear model of what the tool does internally.

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, information-dense, and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every clause adds value: input types, certificate types, and failure behavior. No wasted words or repetition.

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 is complete for a tool with one parameter and no output schema. It explains inputs, the verification procedure, and the failure output. It does not detail the netlist object structure, but the schema's 'netlist spec object' covers that. Slight gap in not specifying the success output format, but the certificate names imply it. Overall adequate.

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% for the single parameter, and the description echoes the same info ('bundled gadget name' vs 'JSON netlist'). The description adds only marginal clarity by calling it a 'JSON netlist' instead of 'netlist spec object'. Since the schema already provides full semantics, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: to certify a masked gadget as first-order secure under glitch-free probing, or to identify the probe wire that recombines a secret. This is a specific verb+resource+outcome, and it distinguishes itself from siblings like check_constant_time (timing) and find_leak (leakage finding).

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides clear context: it accepts a bundled gadget name or a JSON netlist, and it explains the two certificate types tried. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it versus alternatives, but the specialized nature makes the intended use obvious. Missing explicit exclusions or alternative pointers, so not a 5.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools