quantakrypto pqc-tools
Related Servers
Alternatives to quantakrypto pqc-tools
- 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
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceEnables AI agents to sign decisions with post-quantum cryptographic proofs and maintain secure audit trails for compliance. It provides tools for stamping events, verifying chain integrity, and exporting audit data across industries like finance and healthcare.430 npmMIT
Related Servers
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceAn MCP server that scans local codebases for quantum-vulnerable cryptography (secp256k1, Ed25519, RSA, etc.) and CI signing commands, classifying each finding as quantum-broken, post-quantum, or neither. It runs entirely locally with no network calls, providing a deterministic inventory for AI agents.4503 PyPIApache 2.0
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceEnables MCP-compatible AI agents to scan code for leaked secrets, copyleft licenses, unprotected routes, missing privacy policies, and risky card handling before committing or shipping.35 npmMIT
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceMCP security server for AI coding agents. 12 tools: pre-install guardian, vulnerability audit, supply-chain attack detection via static code analysis, and CycloneDX 1.6 SBOM generation. Zero runtime dependencies.149 npm15Apache 2.0
- FlicenseBqualityCmaintenanceEnables AI agents to perform comprehensive, zero-infrastructure codebase analysis through 24 MCP tools, covering security, quality, architecture, type safety, git history, and dead code detection with high precision and local privacy.45-
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceAgent-native "safe to ship?" security gate for AI-generated code. Uses real parsers and inter-rocedural taint analysis (JS/TS, Python, Go) to flag the classes AI coding agents get wrong — secrets, SQL injection, SS, SSRF, path traversal, command injection, weak JWT/CORS — and ranks findings by confidence. Exposes a scan tool over MCP.14 npm2MIT
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceSecurity scanning for AI coding tools (Claude Code, Cursor, Windsurf) including secrets detection, MCP config vulnerabilities, agent instruction checks, threat modeling, prompt injection testing, pre-commit security checks, and dependency vulnerability scanning.730 npm1MIT
TDQS
Scored across 16 tools
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: scanning, explaining, fixing, triaging, or probing. Despite overlapping input types (e.g., multiple scanning tools), their outputs differ significantly (CBOM, inventory, plan, findings). Descriptions are detailed enough to prevent ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., generate_cbom, scan_path, verify_fix). No mixing of conventions or vague verbs, making the naming predictable and readable.
With 16 tools, the server is slightly above the typical 3-15 range for a well-scoped set. However, each tool fulfills a specific function in the PQC readiness workflow, so the count is justified and not excessive.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle: scanning, inventory, planning, explaining, dependency checking, fixing, verification, triage, and endpoint probing. No obvious gaps exist for the stated domain of post-quantum readiness assessment and migration.