pqc-migration-mcp
Related Servers
Alternatives to pqc-migration-mcp
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnables AI assistants to perform quantum-resistant cryptographic operations using NIST-standardized algorithms including ML-KEM, ML-DSA, and SPHINCS+. Supports key generation, encryption, digital signatures, and security analysis for post-quantum cryptography research and development.1MIT
- AlicenseBqualityDmaintenanceDefense-grade cryptographic compliance and analysis tools for MCP, including FIPS 140-3 validation, CNSA 2.0 analysis, post-quantum readiness assessment, and classical cipher utilities.181MIT
- FlicenseBqualityBmaintenanceEnables AI agents to query an air-gapped enterprise knowledge vault via seven MCP tools for deterministic and hybrid retrieval, entity graph traversal, context compression, archive inspection, onboarding scans, and node status.7-
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceMCP server for compliance automation of AI agents, enabling EU AI Act compliance, verifiable credentials, and decentralized identity management with 47 tools across 9 modules.67 PyPI876Apache 2.0
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceMCP tools for video transcoding, document conversion, and multi-step pipelines — callable by any AI agent.1265 npm1MIT
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceMCP server providing embedded engineering calculators and code generators as tools for AI agents, enabling precise, deterministic embedded math and C code generation.2974 npmMIT
TDQS
Scored across 6 tools
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of PQC migration analysis: failure families, reassembly capacity, submission scoring, credential size, family details, and fragmentation. No overlaps in functionality.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern with underscores (list_failure_families, score_submission, describe_family). 'credential_size' and 'reassembly_window' are noun-like but still clear; 'fragments' is a single noun, slightly deviating.
The set includes 6 tools, which is well within the ideal 3-15 range. Each tool addresses a specific need without redundancy, making the scope manageable and focused.
The tools cover querying failure families and scoring submissions, but lack submission management, repair retrieval (noted in describe_family), and listing submissions. Some gaps exist for a full workflow.