Skip to main content
Glama
Post-Quantum Cryptography MCP Server

Post-Quantum Cryptography MCP Server

by scottdhughes

pqc_generate_keypair

Generate a post-quantum key pair for key encapsulation or digital signatures using algorithms such as ML-KEM or ML-DSA, with optional named storage for reuse.

Instructions

Generate a post-quantum key pair for KEM or signature algorithm

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_generate_keypair"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
store_asNoOptional name to store the keypair handle (secret key never returned)
algorithmYesAlgorithm name (e.g., 'ML-KEM-768', 'ML-DSA-65')
overwriteNoIf true, overwrite an existing stored key with the same name
include_secret_keyNoIf false, redact secret key from response (default true for backwards compat; use store_as instead for opaque handles)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.10.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses almost nothing: no mention that the secret key is returned in the response by default, that persistence via store_as yields an opaque handle, or what overwrite=true destroys. For a tool that mints and potentially overwrites secret material, that is a significant gap.

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 zero wasted wording, though the brevity is partly under-specification rather than disciplined economy.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Four parameters, secret material involved, no annotations, and no output schema — the description should explain the storage-vs-raw-return decision and any key-material handling expectations, but instead says nothing beyond the one-line purpose.

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%, with all four parameters documented inline including defaults and the overwrite/redaction semantics. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so 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 ('Generate a post-quantum key pair') and narrows scope to 'KEM or signature algorithm', so the agent knows exactly what is produced. It stops short of 5 because it does not distinguish itself from the sibling pqc_hybrid_keygen, which also generates key material.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given: nothing says when to call this versus pqc_hybrid_keygen, or when to pass store_as instead of receiving a raw secret key. The schema hints at these tradeoffs but the description provides no routing.

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