uuid/sha256/sha1/md5/base64.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"op": "<op>"
},
"name": "hash_tool"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| n | No | ||
| op | Yes | ||
| input | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and discloses nothing: no permissions, no determinism/purity statement, no error behavior for missing input, and no mention of what b64e versus b64d do. An agent cannot tell from this fragment that hashing ops are pure reads while b64d can fail on bad input.
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?
It is short, but that brevity is under-specification rather than concision; there is no front-loaded statement of purpose, just a bare enumeration with a trailing period. Nothing here earns its place as a description since it duplicates the schema's enum.
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?
A three-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema needs a description to explain inputs, outputs, and the uuid-vs-hash-vs-base64 branches; this one supplies none of that. An agent would have to read the schema and guess at semantics to invoke it correctly.
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 0% across three parameters, and the description does not compensate: it never explains that 'input' is required for sha256/sha1/md5/b64e/b64d but ignored for uuid, nor what 'n' (count, 1-100) controls. It also uses 'base64' where the enum splits into 'b64e' and 'b64d', leaving the encode/decode distinction unresolved.
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 is only a slash-separated list of algorithm names ('uuid/sha256/sha1/md5/base64'), restating enum values from the schema instead of saying what the tool does. It never states a verb such as 'computes a hash' or 'encodes/decodes', and 'uuid' is not even a hash, so the underlying purpose has to be inferred.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like case_transform or json_tool, nor when to pick one algorithm over another. Not even a hint about which op requires an input payload.
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.