digest-mcp

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that output is UTF-8 text if valid, otherwise raw bytes as hex. However, it does not mention error behavior for invalid input or permissions.

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?

The description is two concise sentences with no redundant information. Front-loaded with the verb and resource.

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?

For a simple decoding tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the input and output behavior adequately. Missing details on error handling, but generally complete for typical use.

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 descriptions are minimal but cover both parameters. The description adds context about output and encoding types, but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema's enum and basic descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool decodes data from four specific encodings (base64, base64url, hex, URL) and describes the output format, distinguishing it from sibling tools like encode (reverse) and hash (different operation).

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 description does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like jwt_decode, but the purpose is clear. No 'when not' or alternative guidance is provided.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It reveals a key behavioral trait ('Exact, unlike LLM in-context encoding'), indicating reliability. However, it does not disclose other traits such as error handling or whether the operation is safe to repeat.

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?

The description is a single sentence with two clauses, no wasted words. It effectively conveys the core action and a key differentiator. Front-loaded with the main action.

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?

For a simple encoding tool with 2 parameters, no output schema, and distinct sibling tools, the description is complete. It covers the function, input format, output formats, and a behavioral note. No further details necessary.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema: it repeats the encoding types and input type, but does not provide additional semantic detail or usage examples.

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 clearly states the verb 'Encode' and specifies the resources (UTF-8 text) and target encodings (base64, base64url, hex, URL). It distinguishes from sibling tools like decode, hash, jwt_decode, which are fundamentally different operations.

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 description provides context by stating 'Exact, unlike LLM in-context encoding,' implying when precision is needed. While it does not explicitly exclude alternatives, the sibling tools are distinct in purpose, so this is sufficient.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains v4 vs v5 behavior and provides a rationale for tool use. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or output format.

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?

Two sentences front-loaded with purpose and rationale. No superfluous words.

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?

Covers main use cases but does not clarify required parameters for v5 (namespace, name are optional in schema but needed for v5). Lacks output format specification.

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 coverage is 100% (baseline 3). Description adds examples (DNS namespace) and notes that count is ignored for v5, adding value beyond schema.

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 clearly states it generates RFC 4122 UUIDs, distinguishes between v4 random and v5 deterministic, and notes LLMs cannot do this. This differentiates it from sibling tools (decode, encode, hash, jwt_decode).

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?

Explicitly tells when to use: whenever a UUID is needed because LLMs cannot generate valid ones. Does not mention alternatives, but sibling tools are unrelated so context is clear.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states output is hex and base64 digests, but does not disclose exact return structure (e.g., object with fields). No mention of side effects or permissions. Adequate but not rich.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. Purpose, usage guidance, and output note are front-loaded in a compact form. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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?

For a 3-parameter tool without output schema, the description covers purpose, when to use, and output format. Lacks explicit return structure (e.g., whether hex and base64 are returned separately), but otherwise complete for typical hash use.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions. The description adds the algorithm recommendation ('Prefer sha256') but otherwise repeats schema details like input encoding. Moderate added value.

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 clearly states it computes cryptographic hashes, lists supported algorithms (SHA-1/256/384/512), and distinguishes it from siblings like decode/encode by noting LLMs cannot compute hashes. It explicitly mentions output format (hex and base64).

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?

Provides strong guidance: 'LLMs cannot compute hashes — always use this tool' and 'Prefer sha256 unless you need another.' Does not explicitly list when not to use or compare with siblings, but the context is clear for hashing.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses key behaviors: no signature verification, expansion of timestamps (exp/iat/nbf), and expiry reporting. This covers the essential behavioral traits for a decode-only tool.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and key constraint, followed by a critical warning. No redundant information.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity and single parameter, the description is adequate but lacks details on the output format (e.g., a JSON object with decoded header and payload). Without an output schema, this gap reduces completeness.

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 coverage is 100% with the parameter 'jwt' described as 'The JWT string (header.payload.signature)'. The description adds meaning by explaining what happens post-decode (timestamps expansion, expiry), which goes beyond the schema's type and format.

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 uses a specific verb ('Decode') and resource ('JWT'), clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like 'encode' and 'generate_uuid' by focusing on JWT and explicitly stating 'without verifying the signature'.

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 description provides a clear context (decodes JWT without verification) and a strong warning ('Never treat the result as authenticated'), implying when not to use it. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'decode'.

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