Hash Generator — Compute MD5, SHA-1, SHA-256, and SHA-512 hashes of text (or an uploaded file). Always returns all four — there is no algorithm selection and bcrypt is not supported. [category: generate]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file | No | A file to hash instead of typed text. If you attach one, the file wins. | |
| text | No | The text to hash. Leave it blank when you are hashing a file instead. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / text / x-uiAdded value: +{
+ "multiline": true
+}Input schema / x-require-one-ofAdded value: +[
+ [
+ "file"
+ ],
+ [
+ "text"
+ ]
+]Input schema / properties / file / descriptionPrevious value: -"Optional file to hash instead of text."New value: +"A file to hash instead of typed text. If you attach one, the file wins."Input schema / properties / text / descriptionPrevious value: -"Text to hash. Required unless 'file' is provided."New value: +"The text to hash. Leave it blank when you are hashing a file instead."Input schema / properties / text / titleAdded value: +"Text to hash"Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "text"
-]New value: +[]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description carries the burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: the tool always returns all four hashes and ignores any algorithm-selection request. It also notes that file input wins over text, which is a behavioral quirk beyond the schema. It doesn't mention output format or size limits, but the core non-obvious behavior is disclosed.
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?
Three sentences with zero waste. The core function is front-loaded, the always-returns-all-four behavior is stated early, and the exclusions (no algorithm selection, no bcrypt) are packed into the final sentence. Every sentence earns its place.
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 simple two-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers the main behavior, the input precedence, and the exclusions. The only minor gap is the lack of detail on the return format (e.g., whether it returns a JSON object with four hash fields), but the tool's simplicity and the schema's completeness make this a minor omission.
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%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('file' and 'text') with descriptions. The description adds the 'file wins' precedence rule, which is useful, but it doesn't add much beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds only marginal value.
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 a specific verb ('Compute'), the exact resource (MD5, SHA-1, SHA-256, SHA-512 hashes), and the input types (text or uploaded file). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from a hypothetical algorithm-selection tool by noting there is no algorithm selection and bcrypt is not supported. This clearly separates it from siblings like analyze_hash and generate_password.
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 gives clear context on when to use the tool: when you need MD5/SHA-1/SHA-256/SHA-512 hashes of text or a file. It explicitly states what it does NOT do (no algorithm selection, no bcrypt), which helps an agent avoid misusing it. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for bcrypt or other hash types, so it falls just short of a 5.
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.