Post-Quantum Cryptography MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

pqc_benchmark

Benchmark post-quantum cryptographic algorithms by timing key generation, encapsulation or signing, decapsulation or verification, and measuring key, ciphertext, and signature sizes.

Instructions

Benchmark a PQC algorithm: timed keygen, encap/sign, decap/verify, and key/ciphertext/signature sizes.

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_benchmark"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`algorithm`	Yes	Algorithm name (e.g., 'ML-KEM-768', 'ML-DSA-65')
`iterations`	No	Number of iterations to average (default 10, max 100)

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 are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It says what is timed but not whether keys are persisted or discarded, whether iterations up to 100 makes the call slow, or whether any state is created. For a tool that runs repeated crypto operations, the side-effect profile is unstated.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with a colon-delimited list of measured quantities, no filler. The slash notation ('encap/sign', 'decap/verify') is slightly compressed but still readable.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should say more about the return shape and runtime behavior. It gives a good inventory of reported metrics but not how they are returned or what side effects, if any, occur. Adequate for a simple two-parameter tool, but incomplete.

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%, so algorithm and iterations are already documented, including the default and max. The description adds indirect meaning by implying the algorithm choice determines which operation set is benchmarked (KEM vs signature), but it says nothing extra about iterations or expected values beyond the schema.

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?

Names a specific verb (Benchmark) and resource (PQC algorithm) and enumerates exactly what is measured: keygen, encap/sign, decap/verify timings plus key, ciphertext and signature sizes. That clearly separates it from siblings like pqc_generate_keypair or pqc_encapsulate, though it never names an alternative 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 tool for performance/size measurement rather than actual cryptographic operations. There is no statement of when not to use it (e.g., when you just need a keypair) and no prerequisites or cost warnings.

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