Skip to main content
Glama
noor202401938-netizen

cyber-chef-mcp

by noor202401938-netizen
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussions(2)Admin
JavaScript
Local

cyberchef_xor

Applies bitwise XOR with a repeating key to encode or decode strings while preserving raw binary bytes; running it twice with the same key restores the original plaintext.

Instructions

Applies a bitwise XOR cipher using a repeating key against the input string. Preserves raw binary bytes without UTF-8 corruption. Running XOR twice with the same key restores original plaintext.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keyYesThe secret key used for XOR operations. Can be a text string or hex bytes.
inputYesThe ciphertext or plaintext string to process with bitwise XOR.
keyFormatNoFormat of the key string: 'UTF8' (default) or 'Hex'.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.0.4
    • changedInput schema / properties / keyFormat / description
      Previous value: -"Optional format of the key string. Allowed values: 'UTF8' (default, ASCII/UTF-8 string key) or 'Hex' (hexadecimal byte key, e.g. '5a' or 'deadbeef')."New value: +"Format of the key string: 'UTF8' (default) or 'Hex'."
  2. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.0.2
    • changedInput schema / properties / input / description
      Previous value: -"Ciphertext or plaintext"New value: +"The ciphertext or plaintext string to process with bitwise XOR."
    • changedInput schema / properties / key / description
      Previous value: -"Secret key for XOR"New value: +"The secret key used for XOR operations. Can be a text string or hex bytes."
    • changedInput schema / properties / keyFormat / description
      Previous value: -"Format of key string"New value: +"Optional format of the key string. Allowed values: 'UTF8' (default, ASCII/UTF-8 string key) or 'Hex' (hexadecimal byte key, e.g. '5a' or 'deadbeef')."
  3. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the load and does disclose real behavioral traits: raw binary bytes are preserved without UTF-8 corruption, and the operation is involutive with the same key. It does not cover failure modes (empty key, mismatched key format, invalid hex), which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the operation, then the binary-safety caveat, then the reversibility property. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 3-param tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers core behavior and output byte handling but omits error conditions, key requirements, and expected output shape. It is adequate but leaves gaps an agent would want when misusing 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 description coverage is 100%, including the keyFormat enum, so the schema already documents all three parameters with meaning. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond restating the repeating-key concept, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource: applies a bitwise XOR cipher with a repeating key on an input string. This is clearly distinct from sibling ciphers like cyberchef_rot13 and the encoding tools, so an agent can differentiate without opening a schema.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by the cipher semantics, and the reversibility note ('running XOR twice with the same key restores original plaintext') hints at decode workflows, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or routing to alternatives. No sibling is named.

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