Skip to main content
Glama

Hash Encoding Direct Credits

by io.github.PGhannmmn
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

SHA-512

hash_sha512
Destructive

Create an unkeyed SHA-512 fingerprint of UTF-8 text. Use this when a 512-bit digest is specifically required for checksums, fingerprints, or compatibility; use hash_sha256 for the more common 256-bit digest and hmac_sha256 when keyed authentication is required. Returns 128 lowercase hexadecimal characters. Costs 1 credit.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
inputYesText to hash, interpreted as UTF-8, maximum 65,536 characters.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / input / description
      Added value: +"Text to hash, interpreted as UTF-8, maximum 65,536 characters."
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "additionalProperties": false,
+      "properties": {
+        "creditsRemaining": {
+          "description": "Credits remaining after this successful 1-credit call.",
+          "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+          "minimum": 0,
+          "type": "integer"
+        },
+        "sha512": {
+          "description": "SHA-512 digest as 128 lowercase hexadecimal characters.",
+          "pattern": "^[0-9a-f]{128}$",
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "sha512",
+        "creditsRemaining"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    {
+      "additionalProperties": false,
+      "properties": {
+        "creditsRemaining": {
+          "anyOf": [
+            {
+              "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+              "minimum": 0,
+              "type": "integer"
+            },
+            {
+              "type": "null"
+            }
+          ],
+          "description": "Known remaining credits, or null when no balance can be reported."
+        },
+        "error": {
+          "description": "Human-readable reason the protected tool call failed.",
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "status": {
+          "description": "HTTP-style status code for the failure.",
+          "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+          "minimum": -9007199254740991,
+          "type": "integer"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "error",
+        "status",
+        "creditsRemaining"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    }
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations exist, so the bar is lower, and the description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: the exact output shape ('128 lowercase hexadecimal characters') and the cost ('1 credit'). It does not address the odd safety profile declared by annotations (destructiveHint=true for what is a pure computation), but it also does not contradict it.

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?

Three sentences, all front-loaded: purpose first, then the routing rule, then output/cost facts. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition of the title.

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

Completeness5/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, yet the description still states the digest length and character case. Combined with the cost note and sibling routing, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter is fully documented (UTF-8 interpretation, 65,536 max length). The description only restates 'UTF-8 text' and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a precise verb and resource ('Create an unkeyed SHA-512 fingerprint of UTF-8 text'), and the scope ('unkeyed') immediately distinguishes it from hmac_sha256. An agent can separate this from hash_sha256 without opening either schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly names the selection condition ('when a 512-bit digest is specifically required for checksums, fingerprints, or compatibility') and routes the agent to two named alternatives with their own conditions (hash_sha256 for the common 256-bit case, hmac_sha256 for keyed authentication). Nothing is left to inference.

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

All Hash Encoding Direct Credits toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources