Skip to main content
Glama

CipherHUB Cryptography Toolkit

by io.github.bowenerchen
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

hmac_sum

[hash_digest] 计算 HMAC（基于哈希的消息认证码）。 【支持算法】Sha1 / Sha224 / Sha256 / Sha384 / Sha512 / Sm3（不支持 SHAKE 系列，因 SHAKE 为 XOF 非固定长度哈希）。 【参数】

  • key_in_hex：密钥 Hex。SHA 系按 RFC 2104 支持 16256 字节（超块大小会先哈希）；若算法列表含 Sm3，上限为 64 字节（SM3 块大小，即 32128 个 hex 字符）。

  • plain_in_hex：待认证数据 Hex（1B ~ 16MB）

  • required_hash_modes：字符串数组，指定 HMAC 底层哈希算法列表，默认计算全部 6 种算法 【输出】Results 字典，每个算法对应 hmac_sum_in_hex（HMAC Hex 编码）和 hmac_length（字节数）。 【典型用途】消息完整性验证、API 签名、密钥确认。

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
key_in_hexNo密钥的十六进制字符串。长度取决于算法：AES256=64 字符(32B)，AES128/SM4=32 字符(16B)
plain_in_hexNo原始数据的十六进制字符串（1B~16MB，即 2~33554432 个 hex 字符）
required_hash_modesNo哈希算法名称数组，指定需要计算的算法列表，可选值：Sha1 / Sha224 / Sha256 / Sha384 / Sha512 / Sm3 / Shake128 / Shake256（HMAC 不支持 Shake 系列）

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / required_hash_modes / default
      Previous value: -[
-  "Sha256",
-  "Sha384",
-  "Sha512",
-  "Sha1",
-  "Sha224",
-  "Sm3",
-  "Shake128",
-  "Shake256"
-]New value: +[
+  "Sha256",
+  "Sha384",
+  "Sha512",
+  "Sha1",
+  "Sha224",
+  "Sm3"
+]
  2. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / key_in_hex / description
      Added value: +"密钥的十六进制字符串。长度取决于算法：AES256=64 字符(32B)，AES128/SM4=32 字符(16B)"
    • addedInput schema / properties / plain_in_hex / description
      Added value: +"原始数据的十六进制字符串（1B~16MB，即 2~33554432 个 hex 字符）"
    • addedInput schema / properties / required_hash_modes / description
      Added value: +"哈希算法名称数组，指定需要计算的算法列表，可选值：Sha1 / Sha224 / Sha256 / Sha384 / Sha512 / Sm3 / Shake128 / Shake256（HMAC 不支持 Shake 系列）"
    • addedInput schema / properties / required_hash_modes / enum
      Added value: +[
+  "Sha1",
+  "Sha224",
+  "Sha256",
+  "Sha384",
+  "Sha512",
+  "Sm3"
+]
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It details the output format (a dictionary with hmac_sum_in_hex and hmac_length per algorithm), key length constraints, input size limits (1B-16MB), and default behavior (computes all 6 algorithms). It also explains key preprocessing per RFC 2104. This is transparent for a non-destructive pure computation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-organized with labeled sections for algorithms, parameters, output, and typical use. It is clear and front-loaded with the core purpose, though it is somewhat verbose. The structure makes it easy to scan, and every section adds value.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains the return format. It covers parameter constraints (key length, input size), algorithm options, and default behavior. The only gap is a lack of explicit comparison with sibling hash_sum, but the description is otherwise complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context: key length dependencies on algorithm, SM3 block size limit, and clarification that SHAKE is unsupported. It also explains the default value for required_hash_modes. This goes beyond the schema's simple descriptions, justifying a 4.

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?

The description clearly states the tool computes HMAC (hash-based message authentication code) and lists the supported algorithms (Sha1/Sha224/Sha256/Sha384/Sha512/Sm3). It differentiates itself from simple hashing tools like hash_sum by emphasizing the keyed authentication aspect, making its purpose unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description mentions typical use cases (message integrity, API signatures, key confirmation) and excludes SHAKE algorithms, but it does not explicitly compare against sibling tools like hash_sum or state when to prefer this over alternatives. The context is implied but lacks explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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

All CipherHUB Cryptography Toolkit toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources