Dechonet MCP

Post-Quantum TLS Readiness

pqc_readiness

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check whether a website's public TLS 1.3 endpoint is ready for post-quantum cryptography by testing hybrid X25519MLKEM768 key exchange and identifying origin vs CDN support.

Instructions

Check whether a website's public TLS endpoint is ready for post-quantum cryptography: does it complete a TLS 1.3 handshake that offers only the hybrid X25519MLKEM768 key exchange (ML-KEM), and does the organisation's own server provide it or a CDN edge in front of it. Also reports what the certificate chain is signed with (tracked, not scored: public CAs do not issue post-quantum certificates yet). Verdicts: ready (the origin server supports it), partial (a CDN edge provides it; the CDN-to-origin leg is invisible), not_ready (the hybrid-only handshake was refused), unknown (inconclusive; do not report it as "no"). Scope: only the public endpoint on port 443. Internal systems, VPNs, code, and Korean PQC algorithms (no standard TLS codepoints yet) are not observable, so present the result as an external indicator of migration progress, not a full PQC audit. Read-only; requires no API key; rate-limited. Returns the verdict, a 0-100 readiness score and grade, per-check statuses, and a shareable report link.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`domain`	Yes	Domain whose HTTPS endpoint to check (e.g., 'example.com'). Scheme and path are stripped.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`grade`	No
`score`	No	0-100 post-quantum readiness; null when inconclusive
`checks`	No
`verdict`	Yes	'ready' \| 'partial' \| 'not_ready' \| 'unknown'
`reportUrl`	Yes	Human-facing interactive report on dechonet.com
`tlsVersion`	No
`keyExchange`	No	Hybrid group accepted (e.g. X25519MLKEM768), null if none
`terminatedBy`	No	'origin' or the CDN name whose edge answered

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.3.1Oct 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations it discloses rate limiting, no API key requirement, the exact verdict semantics including the caution not to report 'unknown' as 'no', the CDN-edge blind spot on the origin leg, and that certificate-chain signing is tracked but not scored. That is substantial behavioral context an agent cannot get from the structured fields.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads the core purpose and organizes the rest into verdicts, scope, and limitations. It is dense and longer than a minimal description, but nearly every clause carries operational meaning; only mild tightening is possible.

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?

Given a simple one-parameter tool with annotations and an output schema, the description still covers interpretation of verdicts, scope boundaries, and framing of results, leaving no ambiguity about how to invoke or present the tool.

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 coverage is 100% with a single required 'domain' parameter whose description already explains scheme/path stripping, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds nothing parameter-specific beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Check whether a website's public TLS endpoint is ready for post-quantum cryptography') and pins the exact technical test: a TLS 1.3 handshake offering only hybrid X25519MLKEM768. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like ssl_check or http_security, which do not target PQC migration.

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?

Provides explicit scope and exclusions ('only the public endpoint on port 443'; internal systems, VPNs, code, and Korean PQC algorithms are not observable), plus how to frame the result. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative (e.g., ssl_check for general TLS), so it is strong context without full alternative routing.

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