[sm9_ibc] [sm9_ibc] 生成 SM9 标识密码主密钥（GM/T 0044，GmSSL C 实现）。key_kind='Sign' 生成签名主密钥（验签方持主公钥），'Enc' 生成加密主密钥（加密方持主公钥），默认 Enc。输出：master_public_key_in_pem（明文主公钥，分发给所有用户）与 master_private_key_in_pem（ENCRYPTED 口令加密主私钥，KGC 自留）。private_key_password 必填，1-32 UTF-8 字节。SM9 私钥 PEM 只有加密形态（无明文导出）。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key_kind | No | SM9 主密钥类型，可选值：Sign（签名主密钥）/ Enc（加密主密钥） | Enc |
| private_key_password | No | 私钥的加密密码（原始字符串，非编码格式），可选 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly reveals that the public key is plaintext, the private key is ENCRYPTED, there is no plaintext private-key export, and the private key is KGC-held. It does not cover return mechanics like whether files or strings are emitted, but it covers the most critical operational constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and information-dense, covering standard, key kinds, outputs, and password constraints. The duplicated '[sm9_ibc] [sm9_ibc]' prefix is redundant clutter and keeps it from a perfect score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a security-sensitive generation tool with no annotations and no output schema, it explains inputs, outputs, and private-key encryption constraints well. It falls short on exact return payload shape, whether the tool writes files, and resolving the required/optional password contradiction.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds useful meaning to key_kind and specifies password length/encoding. However, it directly contradicts the schema and context signals by declaring private_key_password as required, while the schema marks it optional with default '' and indicates zero required parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states it generates SM9 identity-based master keys (GM/T 0044), which is a specific verb and resource. It further distinguishes Sign vs Enc key kinds, making it easy to differentiate from siblings like sm9_extract_key or generate_sm2.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It gives clear guidance for choosing key_kind (Sign vs Enc), states the default, and describes who holds the public key. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over sibling tools such as sm9_extract_key.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools target a distinct algorithm+operation pair (e.g., rsa_sign vs sm2_sign vs ml_dsa_sign), and descriptions are detailed. However, block_cipher and stream_cipher both perform symmetric encryption, and ecc_key_exchange and hybrid_kex overlap as key exchange, requiring careful reading to distinguish.
Naming is inconsistent across algorithm families: key generation mixes generate_ecc/generate_rsa with ml_dsa_keygen/ml_kem_keygen, and encryption mixes rsa_encryption/sm2_encryption with block_cipher/stream_cipher. Within each family (e.g., rsa_sign/rsa_verify, ml_dsa_sign/ml_dsa_verify), names are predictable, but the overall pattern is not uniform.
32 tools is far above the typical 3-15 range for a well-scoped server. While every tool has a distinct function, the large surface makes the set heavy and harder to navigate, especially with multiple algorithm families and niche utilities.
The toolkit gives comprehensive coverage: key generation, encryption/decryption, signing/verification for RSA, ECC, SM2, ML-DSA, ML-KEM, plus symmetric ciphers, hashing, and key exchange. Full workflows are supported with no dead ends, and even helper tools for debugging are included.