Compute the SHA-256 hash of text content locally. Useful for creating a fingerprint of content for verification purposes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | The text content to hash |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / $schemaAdded value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / textAdded value: +{
+ "description": "The text content to hash",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredAdded value: +[
+ "text"
+]Input schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseInput schema / properties / textRemoved value: -{
- "description": "The text content to hash",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / requiredRemoved value: -[
- "text"
-]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds context: it computes a hash locally, uses SHA-256, and works on text content. It does not contradict annotations. The only gap is that it doesn't mention what the output format is (e.g., hex string), though this is often assumed for hashes.
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 short sentences: the first defines what it does, the second provides usage context. No wasted words, and both are essential. Front-loaded with the 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, single-parameter, read-only, idempotent tool with full schema coverage, the description covers the main behavioral aspects. It lacks mention of output format or encoding, but this is minor given the tool's simplicity.
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%, so the schema already documents the single parameter 'text' as 'The text content to hash'. The description adds 'locally' and 'SHA-256' context but not parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 ('Compute') and resource ('SHA-256 hash of text content'), and adds the clarifying purpose ('creating a fingerprint of content for verification purposes'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'verify_content' and 'verify_hash', which operate on the output of this tool rather than computing it.
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 states it is 'useful for creating a fingerprint of content for verification purposes,' which clearly indicates when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives (e.g., 'verify_hash' for comparison). Still, the context is clear enough for an AI agent to infer appropriate use.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: local hash computation, creator profile lookup, own account info, content protection, verification by ID, and verification by hash. No overlapping functionality.
Five of six tools follow a verb_noun pattern (compute_hash, get_creator, protect_content, verify_content, verify_hash). Only 'my_account' deviates as a possessive noun phrase, but it remains clear and conventional for account info.
Six tools is well-scoped for a content protection server. Each tool serves a necessary function without redundancy or excess, fitting the domain naturally.
Core workflows (hash computation, protection, verification by ID or hash, creator lookup) are covered. Missing features like listing a creator's protected content or unprotecting content are minor gaps that don't break the primary use case.