Hash Generator (File) — Compute MD5, SHA-1, SHA-256, and SHA-512 hashes of an uploaded file. [category: analyze]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file | No | The file to hash. Any type, of any size we accept. | |
| text | No | Hash typed text instead of a file. Ignored if a file is attached — the file wins. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / text / x-ui / multilineAdded value: +trueInput schema / properties / text / x-uiAdded value: +{
+ "unset_label": "Uses the attached file instead"
+}Input schema / x-require-one-ofAdded value: +[
+ [
+ "file"
+ ],
+ [
+ "text"
+ ]
+]Input schema / properties / file / descriptionPrevious value: -"File to hash (any type)"New value: +"The file to hash. Any type, of any size we accept."Input schema / properties / file / titleAdded value: +"File to hash"Input schema / properties / text / descriptionPrevious value: -"Direct text alternative to the file."New value: +"Hash typed text instead of a file. Ignored if a file is attached — the file wins."Input schema / properties / text / titleAdded value: +"Text to hash"Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "file"
-]New value: +[]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that four specific hash algorithms are computed, implying the output contains all four, but it does not disclose any other behavioral traits such as output format, size limits, or the file-over-text precedence present in the schema.
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 a single tightly-packed sentence that states the action and algorithm list, followed by a category tag. No filler, no repetition of schema details, and the core information is front-loaded.
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?
The description covers only the file input, leaving the text-hashing capability and the one-of requirement undocumented in the prose. With no output schema, the return shape is left to inference, and the presence of sibling generate_hash creates selection ambiguity that the description fails to resolve.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both 'file' and 'text' fully explained including the precedence rule. The main description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 clearly states a specific action and resource: 'Compute MD5, SHA-1, SHA-256, and SHA-512 hashes of an uploaded file.' It enumerates the exact algorithms, which is helpful. However, it omits the text-hashing mode exposed in the input schema and does not differentiate itself from the sibling generate_hash tool.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as generate_hash or other analyze_* tools. The only context is the '[category: analyze]' tag, which is implicit. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative recommendations.
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.