SHA-256, SHA-1, MD5, and SHA-512 checksums of text.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "hash"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It lists the supported algorithms but does not disclose output encoding/format, whether multiple hashes are returned in one call, determinism, or any input constraints.
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 short fragment, so it is concise. However, it lacks a complete sentence structure and omits invocation essentials, making it under-specified rather than optimally concise.
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 utility with no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify input shape and output format. It states the algorithms but not what the tool returns or how the body is interpreted, leaving an agent unable to call it reliably from the definition alone.
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?
The input schema declares zero parameters, so the rubric baseline is 4. The description adds the supported algorithm list but does not explain how the free-form POST body should be structured.
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 names the resource (checksums) and supported algorithms (SHA-256, SHA-1, MD5, SHA-512), so an agent can infer text hashing. However, it is a sentence fragment with no verb and does not differentiate this tool from siblings like base64 or id_generate.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no named alternatives, and no exclusions. The agent must infer that this is for hashing rather than encoding, generating IDs, or formatting text.
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.