Post-Quantum Cryptography MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

pqc_key_store_delete

Deletes a stored post-quantum key by name, removing it from the key store when it is no longer needed. Use it to clean up or revoke keys by specifying the key name.

Instructions

Delete a stored key by name.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "pqc_key_store_delete"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	Name of the key to delete

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.10.0Nov 4, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

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 for a destructive mutation. It does not say whether deletion is permanent or reversible, what happens if the named key does not exist, whether any authorization or confirmation is required, or what the tool returns on success or failure.

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?

The single sentence is front-loaded with the action and contains no filler, which is structurally appropriate. Its brevity reflects under-specification of a destructive operation rather than a genuine surplus, but the sentence itself earns its place.

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 destructive key-store mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits irreversibility, error behavior for a missing key, and any confirmation or authorization expectation, leaving the agent to guess at the most consequential aspects of invoking it.

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?

There is a single parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema already stating 'Name of the key to delete.' The phrase 'by name' in the description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies rather than a higher score.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('a stored key') with the selector ('by name'), so an agent can tell it apart from pqc_key_store_save, pqc_key_store_load, and pqc_key_store_list. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings as alternatives, which keeps it from a 5.

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 guidance on when to delete versus when to keep or overwrite a key via pqc_key_store_save, and no preconditions such as needing the key to exist first. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and the surrounding sibling set.

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