crypto-reverse-mcp
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Instructions
Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.
This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.
Capabilities
Features and capabilities supported by this server
Protocol revision2025-11-25
| Capability | Details |
|---|---|
| tools | {
"listChanged": true
} |
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| detect_cryptoA | Detect cryptographic algorithms used in JavaScript source code. Identifies AES/RSA/SM2/SM3/SM4/HMAC/MD5/SHA family algorithms with evidence, key/IV source tracking, and cipher mode. Input: JS source code string. Returns list of detected crypto usages with algorithm type, location (line/col), evidence snippet, key source, IV source, and mode (CBC/ECB/GCM/CTR etc). |
| identify_obfuscationA | Identify the obfuscation/packing technique used in JavaScript code. Detects webpack bundles, AAEncode, JJEncode, JSFuck, obfuscator.io, JavaScript obfuscator, babel minified, packer (Dean Edwards), UPX-style, eval-based loaders, and control-flow flattening. Input: JS source code. Returns obfuscation type, confidence, unpack hints, and recommended deobfuscation strategy. |
| reconstruct_algorithmA | Reconstruct a standalone implementation of a cryptographic algorithm from JS source + captured input/output samples. Given the original JS code and (optionally) sample input→output pairs, generate a self-contained Python implementation that reproduces the same transformation. Supports common AES/RSA/HMAC/MD5/SHA/SM2/SM3/SM4 patterns. Input: source code, optional samples (array of {input, output} pairs), target language (python/node). Returns reconstructed code + verification notes. |
| generate_sdkA | Generate a ready-to-use SDK (Python/Node/Go) from a reversed API contract. Given endpoint URL, HTTP method, headers, body template, and the signature/encryption algorithm spec, produce a complete SDK file with: request construction, crypto signing, error handling, and usage example. Input: API spec (url, method, sign algorithm description, params). Returns SDK code in requested language. |
| bypass_anti_debugA | Generate anti-debugging bypass scripts for common anti-debug techniques. Detects and generates bypass for: debugger statement loops, setInterval debugger, devtools detection (window size, console access, Function.toString), timing checks, console.log getter traps, and CodeMirror/eruda detection. Input: JS source code or technique name. Returns bypass injection script + injection instructions. |
| extract_crypto_constantsA | Extract cryptographic constants from JS source code. Identifies S-boxes (AES/DES), initial hash values (SHA-256/SHA-1/MD5/SM3), round constants, elliptic curve parameters (SM2/NIST curves), magic numbers, and known crypto constant arrays. Input: JS source code. Returns list of found constants with their crypto algorithm association and location. |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No prompts | |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No resources | |
TDQS
Scored across 6 tools
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of JavaScript reverse engineering: crypto detection, obfuscation identification, algorithm reconstruction, anti-debug bypass, SDK generation, and constant extraction. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (detect_crypto, identify_obfuscation, reconstruct_algorithm, etc.), making them predictable and easy for an agent to navigate.
With 6 tools, the set is well-scoped for a specialized crypto-reverse MCP server. Each tool serves a clear purpose without unnecessary bloat or deficiency.
The tool surface covers core reverse engineering workflows: detection, identification, reconstruction, bypass, and SDK generation. A minor gap is the lack of a deobfuscation tool that actually transforms obfuscated code (beyond identification), but the set is otherwise complete for its stated domain.