Post-Quantum Cryptography MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

pqc_algorithm_info

Look up a specific post-quantum cryptography algorithm to retrieve its security level, key sizes, and performance characteristics for comparison and evaluation.

Instructions

Get detailed information about a specific PQC algorithm including security level, key sizes, and performance characteristics

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": {
      "algorithm": "<algorithm>"
    },
    "name": "pqc_algorithm_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`algorithm`	Yes	Algorithm name (e.g., 'ML-KEM-768', 'ML-DSA-65')

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.10.0Nov 4, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only lookup but never says so, and does not address what happens for an unrecognized algorithm name, whether the lookup is local/static data, or any error behavior — notable omissions for a zero-annotation tool.

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?

One tight sentence with the resource and the payload front-loaded and no filler. It could be marginally stronger with an explicit routing clause, but nothing is wasted.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description should explain the shape of the returned information and how to obtain valid algorithm names. It partially covers the return contents but omits discovery guidance and error behavior, leaving a clear but modest gap.

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% and the single 'algorithm' parameter already includes examples ('ML-KEM-768', 'ML-DSA-65'). The description adds no additional parameter meaning such as case sensitivity or accepted naming variants, so it sits at the baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb ('Get detailed information') and resource ('a specific PQC algorithm'), and enumerates the kind of data returned (security level, key sizes, performance characteristics). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling pqc_list_algorithms, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the single-algorithm lookup versus the list tool, but the description never states when to use it, when not to, or that pqc_list_algorithms should be called first to discover valid names.

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