Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Post-Quantum Cryptography MCP Server

Post-Quantum Cryptography MCP Server

by scottdhughes
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

pqc_compare

Compare post-quantum algorithms with classical counterparts to evaluate latency, key sizes, and performance ratios for ML-KEM vs X25519 and ML-DSA vs Ed25519.

Instructions

Compare a PQC algorithm against its classical counterpart. Side-by-side latency, key sizes, and performance ratios. Supports ML-KEM vs X25519 and ML-DSA vs Ed25519.

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_compare"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
algorithmYesPQC algorithm name (e.g., 'ML-KEM-768', 'ML-DSA-65')
iterationsNoNumber of iterations to average (default 10, max 100)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.10.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose what the tool produces (side-by-side latency, key sizes, ratios) and its supported input families, which is real value. It does not state that the operation is non-destructive/read-only, that it runs actual timed operations (potentially slow at 100 iterations), or what happens for an unsupported algorithm.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the return content, then the supported scope. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what is compared, what is returned, and which algorithm pairs are valid. The remaining gaps (unsupported-algorithm behavior, cost of high iteration counts, side-effect profile) are modest but real given there are no annotations to fall back on.

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%, so both 'algorithm' and 'iterations' are already documented with examples and defaults. The description adds nothing about parameters beyond implying valid algorithm names, so the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage applies.

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 and resource (compare a PQC algorithm against its classical counterpart) and enumerates the outputs: latency, key sizes, performance ratios. It also names the supported pairings (ML-KEM vs X25519, ML-DSA vs Ed25519), so the tool is clearly distinguishable in intent. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with the closest sibling, pqc_benchmark, which also measures latency.

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: the supported pairings tell the agent which algorithms are valid, and the word 'compare' signals the intent. There is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over pqc_benchmark or pqc_algorithm_info, and no statement about preconditions such as whether keys must already be generated.

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