Skip to main content
Glama

CipherHUB Cryptography Toolkit

by io.github.bowenerchen

hmac_sum

[hash_digest] 计算 HMAC（基于哈希的消息认证码）。 【支持算法】Sha1 / Sha224 / Sha256 / Sha384 / Sha512 / Sm3（不支持 SHAKE 系列，因 SHAKE 为 XOF 非固定长度哈希）。 【参数】

  • key_in_hex：密钥 Hex。SHA 系按 RFC 2104 支持 16256 字节（超块大小会先哈希）；若算法列表含 Sm3，上限为 64 字节（SM3 块大小，即 32128 个 hex 字符）。

  • plain_in_hex：待认证数据 Hex（1B ~ 16MB）

  • required_hash_modes：字符串数组，指定 HMAC 底层哈希算法列表，默认计算全部 6 种算法 【输出】Results 字典，每个算法对应 hmac_sum_in_hex（HMAC Hex 编码）和 hmac_length（字节数）。 【典型用途】消息完整性验证、API 签名、密钥确认。

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
key_in_hexNo密钥的十六进制字符串。长度取决于算法：AES256=64 字符(32B)，AES128/SM4=32 字符(16B)
plain_in_hexNo原始数据的十六进制字符串（1B~16MB，即 2~33554432 个 hex 字符）
required_hash_modesNo哈希算法名称数组，指定需要计算的算法列表，可选值：Sha1 / Sha224 / Sha256 / Sha384 / Sha512 / Sm3 / Shake128 / Shake256（HMAC 不支持 Shake 系列）

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / key_in_hex / description
      Added value: +"密钥的十六进制字符串。长度取决于算法：AES256=64 字符(32B)，AES128/SM4=32 字符(16B)"
    • addedInput schema / properties / plain_in_hex / description
      Added value: +"原始数据的十六进制字符串（1B~16MB，即 2~33554432 个 hex 字符）"
    • addedInput schema / properties / required_hash_modes / description
      Added value: +"哈希算法名称数组，指定需要计算的算法列表，可选值：Sha1 / Sha224 / Sha256 / Sha384 / Sha512 / Sm3 / Shake128 / Shake256（HMAC 不支持 Shake 系列）"
    • addedInput schema / properties / required_hash_modes / enum
      Added value: +[
+  "Sha1",
+  "Sha224",
+  "Sha256",
+  "Sha384",
+  "Sha512",
+  "Sm3"
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses important behaviors such as RFC 2104 key handling, key size limits, the '超块大小会先哈希' behavior, default computation of all 6 algorithms, and the output dictionary structure. It does not, however, state behavior when key_in_hex or plain_in_hex are omitted despite the schema marking all parameters optional.

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 well-structured with clear sections for algorithms, parameters, output, and typical uses. It is concise for the complexity involved, with no redundant filler; every section contributes actionable information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description properly explains the return structure, algorithm options, input size constraints, and default behavior. The main gap is that required parameters are not explicitly marked as mandatory, which is especially relevant because the schema reports 0 required parameters; a caller might attempt an invalid call without plain_in_hex.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds substantial meaning: key hex ranges, SM3-specific 64-byte limit, plain data range, default modes, and explicit rejection of SHAKE. The value is slightly reduced because the schema's key_in_hex description incorrectly references AES/SM4 key lengths, creating cross-source confusion that the description does not directly reconcile.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description opens with a specific action and resource: '计算 HMAC（基于哈希的消息认证码）' and lists supported algorithms, making it unmistakable that this tool produces keyed HMAC digests. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools such as hash_sum, which likely produces plain hashes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear use context through '典型用途' (message integrity, API signing, key confirmation) and explicitly excludes SHAKE algorithms with a reason. However, it does not name alternatives like hash_sum or give explicit when-not-to-use guidance beyond the SHAKE exclusion.

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

All CipherHUB Cryptography Toolkit toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

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 Consistency3/5

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.

Tool Count2/5

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.

Completeness5/5

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.

Resources