Post-Quantum Cryptography MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

pqc_verify

Verify post-quantum signatures against an original message using a specified PQC algorithm and a Base64 public key or stored signing keypair.

Instructions

Verify a signature using a PQC 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>",
      "message": "<message>",
      "signature": "<signature>"
    },
    "name": "pqc_verify"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`message`	Yes	Original message
`algorithm`	Yes	Signature algorithm name
`signature`	Yes	Base64-encoded signature
`public_key`	No	Base64-encoded public/verification key
`key_store_name`	No	Name of stored signing keypair

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.10.0Nov 4, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does not say what a successful versus failed verification looks like, whether an exception or a boolean is returned, whether the algorithm must match the one used at signing, or that signature and key must be Base64 — all material to correct invocation.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects 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?

For a five-parameter verification tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum indicate the key-source alternative and the shape of the result. Instead it leaves the agent without guidance on either, which is a substantial gap relative to the tool's complexity.

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 every parameter is documented at the field level and the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning and notably does not clarify the relationship between public_key and the optional key_store_name, nor explain the trailing 'PQC signature algorithm' constraint on the algorithm parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb (verify) and resource (signature) against a PQC algorithm, so the operation itself is identifiable. However, it does nothing to separate this tool from the sibling pqc_hybrid_auth_verify, which likely performs a closely related verification task, leaving the agent to infer which to call.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus pqc_hybrid_auth_verify, nor any indication of the two mutually exclusive key-sourcing paths (public_key vs key_store_name) that the schema exposes. The agent must guess the intended entry conditions.

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