hashHash a text or a file (md5, sha1, sha256, sha512). Returns the hash of a text (JSON) or of a file (raw bytes, max 25 MB). Useful for checksums and deduplication.
Costs 1 credit per call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | The text to hash. | |
| encoding | No | How to write the result: "hex" (default) or "base64". | hex |
| algorithm | No | Hash algorithm: "md5", "sha1", "sha256" (default) or "sha512". | sha256 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the 1-credit cost, the 25 MB file limit, and the differing return forms for text (JSON) versus file (raw bytes). These are useful behavioral details not present in the schema or annotations. The file mode is slightly ambiguous because the input schema only exposes a text parameter, but the description does not contradict the annotations.
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 mostly front-loaded, but the first sentence duplicates the title verbatim, adding no new information. The remaining sentences about return formats and credit costs earn their place, so the overall structure is adequate though not tight.
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 three-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description covers the essential output behavior and size limit. However, the advertised file-hashing branch is not represented in the input schema, and there is no output schema, so an agent cannot confidently determine how to invoke the file path.
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 input schema already documents all three parameters with descriptions and enums, so the description does not need to repeat them. However, it adds some confusion by advertising file hashing without explaining how a file maps to the single 'text' parameter, and the stated 25 MB limit does not align with text.maxLength=1000000.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource, 'Hash a text or a file', and precisely enumerates the supported algorithms (md5, sha1, sha256, sha512). This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and clearly distinguishes it from sibling utilities like slugify, validate_email, or generate_uuid.
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?
The description explicitly states intended use cases: 'Useful for checksums and deduplication.' It also notes the credit cost per call, which is relevant to invocation decisions. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling tool is a close substitute for hashing.
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.