Verify content authenticity by its SHA-256 hash. Check if a file or text has been registered with ProofX without uploading it. The user should compute the SHA-256 hash of their content first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hash | Yes | The SHA-256 hash of the file (64-character hex string) |
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 / hashAdded value: +{
+ "description": "The SHA-256 hash of the file (64-character hex string)",
+ "maxLength": 64,
+ "minLength": 64,
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / requiredAdded value: +[
+ "hash"
+]Input schema / $schemaRemoved value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falseInput schema / properties / hashRemoved value: -{
- "description": "The SHA-256 hash of the file (64-character hex string)",
- "maxLength": 64,
- "minLength": 64,
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / requiredRemoved value: -[
- "hash"
-]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds that the tool checks against ProofX and does not upload content, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not describe the return value or what happens if the hash is not found, which would be helpful given the absence of an output schema. The added value is moderate.
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 composed of three concise sentences. The first states the core purpose, the second adds key context (no upload, ProofX), and the third gives a usage directive. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff. It is well-structured and front-loaded.
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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, key behavioral trait (no upload), and a prerequisite (compute hash first). It does not specify the output format or possible return values, which would be a minor improvement. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for the agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.
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% and the schema description of the 'hash' parameter already specifies it as a 64-character hex string. The description merely reiterates that the hash is the input and that the user should compute it, adding no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline is 3 due to high coverage, and no additional value is provided.
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 'verify', the resource 'content authenticity', and the method 'by its SHA-256 hash' against the ProofX system. It also specifies that no upload occurs, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'protect_content' and 'verify_content' that may involve uploading. The purpose is precise and unambiguous.
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 clear context: 'Check if a file or text has been registered with ProofX without uploading it' indicates when to use this tool (for registration check without upload). It also instructs the user to compute the SHA-256 hash first, which is a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives, though the sibling tool 'compute_hash' is implied. The guidance is adequate but not exhaustive.
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.