Post-Quantum Cryptography MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

pqc_hybrid_encap

Perform hybrid X25519 and ML-KEM-768 key encapsulation to derive a combined shared secret and produce ciphertexts for quantum-resistant key exchange.

Instructions

Perform hybrid X25519 + ML-KEM-768 key encapsulation. Returns combined shared secret + ciphertexts.

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_encap"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`key_store_name`	No	Name of stored hybrid key bundle
`pqc_public_key`	No	Base64-encoded ML-KEM-768 public key
`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

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It mentions the return contents (combined shared secret + ciphertexts), but does not disclose prerequisites, key-input selection behavior, security handling of the shared secret, or whether operations are ephemeral or side-effect-free.

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?

The description is two concise sentences with the core operation front-loaded. There is no unnecessary wording, and the return summary follows immediately.

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?

The description covers the core operation and return summary, and the schema documents parameters fully. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it should explain how key_store_name relates to supplying raw public keys and say more about the returned structure or secret-handling expectations.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, making baseline 3 appropriate.

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: hybrid X25519 + ML-KEM-768 key encapsulation. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish this operation from sibling tools such as pqc_hybrid_seal, pqc_encapsulate, or pqc_hybrid_keygen.

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 description gives no when-to-use guidance, alternatives, or exclusions. With many sibling tools performing related encapsulation and hybrid operations, an agent must infer when this specific tool is appropriate.

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