Post-Quantum Cryptography MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

pqc_hybrid_auth_seal

Encrypts and signs data into a sender-authenticated hybrid sealed envelope using ML-DSA-65 for post-quantum research and prototyping.

Instructions

Encrypt + sign: sender-authenticated hybrid sealed envelope using ML-DSA-65. Research/prototyping only.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "pqc_hybrid_auth_seal"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`plaintext`	No	UTF-8 string to encrypt (mutually exclusive with plaintext_base64)
`max_decrypt_time`	No	Sender-imposed TTL in seconds. If set, this API refuses decryption after timestamp + max_decrypt_time. This is sender-controlled (unlike max_age_seconds which is recipient-controlled). Signed in transcript.
`plaintext_base64`	No	Base64-encoded binary data (mutually exclusive with plaintext)
`sender_public_key`	No	Base64-encoded ML-DSA-65 public/verification key
`sender_secret_key`	No	Base64-encoded ML-DSA-65 secret/signing key
`sender_key_store_name`	No	Name of stored signing keypair for sender
`recipient_key_store_name`	No	Name of stored hybrid key bundle for recipient
`recipient_pqc_public_key`	No	Base64-encoded ML-KEM-768 public key
`recipient_classical_public_key`	No	Base64-encoded raw 32-byte X25519 public key

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.10.0Nov 4, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

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 burden. It usefully discloses the operation composition (encrypt plus sign) and a safety warning that this is research/prototyping only, but says nothing about key sourcing requirements, whether existing envelopes are invalidated, or the shape of the resulting envelope.

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 with no waste, and the core operation is front-loaded before the caveat. Nothing could be removed without losing signal.

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?

For a nine-parameter cryptographic tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. It does not explain the raw-key versus key-store alternatives, which recipient parameters are mandatory in practice despite zero required fields, or what an agent receives back from the call.

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 all nine parameters are already documented, including the plaintext mutual exclusivity and the sender-controlled TTL. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which is the baseline 3 case.

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?

States a specific verb pair and resource: 'Encrypt + sign: sender-authenticated hybrid sealed envelope using ML-DSA-65.' The 'sender-authenticated' qualifier genuinely distinguishes it from the unsigned pqc_hybrid_seal sibling, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

The only usage signal is 'Research/prototyping only', which is a caveat rather than routing guidance. It never says when to choose this over pqc_hybrid_seal (unsigned) or when to use pqc_hybrid_auth_open to reverse it.

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