privi_payload_hashHash a canonical JSON payload using SHA-256; not a signature.
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": {
"value": "<value>"
},
"name": "privi_payload_hash"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| value | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety profile is covered; the description adds the hash algorithm and clarifies this is not cryptographic signing, which is genuinely useful. It still omits determinism/key-sensitivity expectations and output format, which matter for a hashing utility.
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?
A single compact sentence with the operation front-loaded and the key caveat attached; no filler. Everything present 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?
No output schema exists, so the description should indicate what comes back (e.g. a hex digest and its length); it does not. For a one-parameter, no-annotation-burden utility it is close to adequate, but the unstated return value leaves a real gap.
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% for the single 'value' parameter, which accepts any JSON type, so the description carries the burden. 'Canonical JSON payload' hints that the value is canonicalized before hashing, but it never explains the accepted types, what canonicalization rules apply, or how non-object inputs behave.
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?
Names a specific verb and resource ('Hash a canonical JSON payload') plus the algorithm (SHA-256), and adds a negative disambiguator ('not a signature') that separates it from signing tools. It does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings like privi_json_canonical or privi_receipt_hash, so the differentiator is partial rather than complete.
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 'not a signature' clause is a useful implicit when-not-to-use signal, steering agents away from misuse as a signing primitive. However, it gives no positive usage context (when fingerprinting is the right operation) and never names an alternative tool for canonicalization or receipt hashing.
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.