PKI Studio MCP

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Extract ASN.1 Node

extract_asn1_node

Extract a specific ASN.1 node and its subtree as DER bytes by providing the node ID from parse_asn1 output. Supports PEM, HEX, base64, DER, and BER inputs.

Instructions

Extract a parsed ASN.1 node and its subtree by node id as DER bytes.

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": {
      "data": "<data>",
      "nodeId": "<nodeId>"
    },
    "name": "extract_asn1_node"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes	ASN.1 input as PEM, HEX, base64, DER base64, or text.
`nodeId`	Yes	Node id from parse_asn1 output.
`format`	No	Input format. Use auto to detect PEM, HEX, base64, DER, or BER.	auto
`encoding`	No	Output encoding for DER or value bytes.	hex

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.7.2Jun 7, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, and description does not disclose if extraction is read-only or modifies state, nor any permission or side-effect details. The term 'extract' implies retrieval but lacks clarity on safety.

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?

Single sentence concisely states purpose, no redundant words. However, it is slightly terse and could include an example or usage hint without bloating.

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

Completeness2/5

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

No output schema, and description omits critical context: requires prior parse_asn1 call to obtain nodeId, does not explain output structure beyond 'DER bytes', and lacks any example or edge-case note for the 4 parameters.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions (e.g., data, nodeId, format, encoding). The description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema, so baseline of 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?

Description uses specific verb 'extract' with resource 'parsed ASN.1 node and its subtree' and output format 'as DER bytes', clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like parse_asn1 (parsing) and asn1_node_value (value extraction).

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, such as after parse_asn1 to retrieve raw bytes, or in contrast to asn1_node_value for text values.

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