Attest that a SHA-256 digest existed at a time. Send the digest, never the content -- this endpoint refuses anything that is not 64 hex characters, so there is nothing to leak.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sha256 | Yes | A SHA-256 digest, hex. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal a key behavior: 'this endpoint refuses anything that is not 64 hex characters', which sets input expectations. It also implies a privacy guarantee ('there is nothing to leak'). However, it does not describe the response format, whether the operation has side effects (e.g., creating a record), or error handling beyond invalid input.
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 sentences with zero fluff. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second delivers a critical usage warning. All information is front-loaded and directly relevant to invoking the tool correctly.
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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It explains the input format and a critical constraint. The main gap is that it does not describe what the tool returns (e.g., a token, a timestamp, a receipt). Given the tool's simplicity, this is a minor omission but not a blocker for basic 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?
The schema already documents the parameter with a pattern and description (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by explicitly instructing 'Send the digest, never the content', clarifying that the value must be the hash itself, not the underlying data. This goes beyond the schema's dry pattern definition.
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's function: 'Attest that a SHA-256 digest existed at a time.' The verb 'attest' and resource 'SHA-256 digest' are specific, and the tool is not tautological. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'attest', which may cause confusion about which to use for a given task.
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 strong usage directive: 'Send the digest, never the content' and notes the endpoint rejects non-64-hex input. This tells the agent how to use the tool, but it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'attest'. No exclusions or contextual triggers are given, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.