hmac_verify
Verify HMAC signature (hex or base64).
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| secret | Yes | ||
| message | Yes | ||
| algorithm | No | sha256 | |
| signature | Yes |
ToolAPI
by org.toolapi
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- Added
TDQS
C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description omits behavioral details such as return value (e.g., boolean or error), side effects, or algorithm support beyond default sha256.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but under-specified for a verification tool; lacks key details needed for correct usage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, no annotations, and 4 parameters at 0% coverage, the description is grossly incomplete; an agent lacks essential information on output, algorithm variations, and error handling.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema coverage, the description only clarifies the signature format (hex or base64) but fails to explain secret, message, or algorithm parameters, leaving them opaque.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Verify HMAC signature' and specifies input formats (hex or base64), distinguishing it from sibling hmac_sign.
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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives like hmac_sign or jwt_verify. The description only states what it does without context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
B3/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Every tool has a clear, distinct purpose with thorough descriptions. Even closely related tools like base64_decode/encode and hash_md5/sha256 are easily differentiated by name and description.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent lowercase_underscore naming convention, typically in a <domain>_<action> or <action>_<domain> pattern. There are no jarring deviations or mixed styles.
Tool Count1/5
193 tools is an extreme count, far beyond what any focused server needs. While each tool has utility, the sheer number creates a kitchen-sink effect that overwhelms agents and hinders discoverability.
Completeness4/5
Within each subdomain (JSON, cron, JWT, etc.), the coverage is exhaustive, covering validation, conversion, parsing, and more. Minor gaps exist (e.g., YAML-to-TOML conversion missing), but overall it is remarkably complete.