Skip to main content
Glama

Tools for Agents

by io.github.max124vip-dev

hash_text

SHA256 and MD5 hash

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYesInput text

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / properties / args
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Tool arguments",
-  "properties": {
-    "text": {
-      "description": "Primary input text",
-      "type": "string"
-    }
-  },
-  "type": "object"
-}
    • addedInput schema / properties / text
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Input text",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[]New value: +[
+  "text"
+]
  2. Added

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only names the algorithms. It does not state output format, whether it returns both hashes or a single encoded value, or any side effects. This is minimal beyond what the tool name already implies.

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?

At three words, the description is extremely concise and front-loaded with key algorithm names. It avoids filler but is borderline under-specified, though the simplicity of the tool allows for this brevity.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The tool is simple with one parameter, but the description omits essential context like return value structure (e.g., separate fields for sha256 and md5, hex encoding). Without an output schema or annotations, the agent is left guessing how to interpret results, making the description incomplete for effective invocation.

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?

The schema already fully describes the single 'text' parameter with 100% coverage. The description mentions SHA256 and MD5, which are relevant to the parameter's use but adds no new semantic meaning about the parameter itself. Baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the specific algorithms (SHA256 and MD5) and the implied action (hashing), which clarifies the tool's function beyond the name. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like content_hash or crypto_invoke, which might also perform hashing.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as content_hash or crypto_invoke. The description gives no context for selection or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction.

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

All Tools for Agents toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

C2/5.0
Disambiguation1/5

Multiple tools have overlapping or identical purposes, such as ocr_url and ocr_image (both OCR from an image URL), compare_texts and text_diff (both compare or diff texts), extract_url and read_url (both extract webpage content), and content_hash and hash_text (both compute hashes). The boundaries between these tools are unclear, causing a high risk of misselection.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are mixed. Many tools use verb_noun (extract_url, validate_email), but others use noun_verb (language_detect, html_clean), single words (advisor, crawl, retrieve), or noun_noun (job_status, page_metadata). This inconsistency makes it harder to predict tool names.

Tool Count1/5

With 100 tools, the server is extremely over-scoped for a generic agent toolkit. While some tools are distinct and useful, the sheer number does not align with a focused purpose; many tools are redundant or highly specialized, and the count exceeds what is typically manageable for an agent to reason about.

Completeness3/5

The toolkit covers a broad range of utilities including extraction, validation, processing, research, memory, and orchestration. However, there are no CRUD tools for creating/updating/deleting resources, no database or file system operations, and no integration beyond web/API basics. This leaves significant gaps for agents that need general lifecycle management, though it does handle many common tasks.

Resources