Post-Quantum Cryptography MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

pqc_fingerprint

Computes a SHA3-256 fingerprint from a Base64-encoded public key of any algorithm and returns lowercase hex for consistent key identification.

Instructions

Compute SHA3-256 fingerprint of a public key. Returns lowercase hex.

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": {
      "public_key": "<public_key>"
    },
    "name": "pqc_fingerprint"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`public_key`	Yes	Base64-encoded public key (any algorithm)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.10.0Nov 4, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the output encoding ('lowercase hex') and the digest algorithm, which is more than a bare restatement. However, it never says this is a pure, side-effect-free computation, that the result is deterministic for identical key bytes, or what happens on invalid base64 input.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the operation front-loaded and the return format trailing. Nothing is wasted and nothing important is buried.

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 one-parameter pure function with full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition covers input, algorithm, and return encoding, which is nearly sufficient. The remaining gap is error behavior for malformed keys, a minor omission given the tool's simplicity.

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% and the single parameter already documents 'Base64-encoded public key (any algorithm)'. The description only restates that the input is a public key, adding no encoding, size, or format constraints beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Compute SHA3-256 fingerprint of a public key'), which is enough to distinguish it from generic hashing or comparison siblings by algorithm and input type. It stops short of naming the sibling it displaces (e.g. pqc_hash for arbitrary data or pqc_compare for fingerprints), so it is clear but not sibling-differentiated.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says to prefer this over pqc_hash when you have a public key, or that pqc_compare is the follow-on for comparing two fingerprints. The use case is only inferable from the noun 'public key' in the description.

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