Skip to main content
Glama

sha256

Calculate SHA-256 cryptographic hash for any input string to verify data integrity and generate secure digital fingerprints.

Instructions

Calculate SHA-256 hash of a string

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
inputYesThe input string to hash

Implementation Reference

  • Handler function that takes input string, computes SHA-256 hash using DigestUtil.sha256, and returns it as text content.
    ({ input }) => {
      const hash = DigestUtil.sha256(input);
      return {
        content: [{ type: "text", text: hash }],
      };
    }
  • Input schema defining a single string parameter for the input to hash.
    {
      input: z.string().describe("The input string to hash"),
    },
  • Registration of the 'sha256' tool on the McpServer, including name, description, schema, and handler.
    server.tool(
      "sha256",
      "Calculate SHA-256 hash of a string",
      {
        input: z.string().describe("The input string to hash"),
      },
      ({ input }) => {
        const hash = DigestUtil.sha256(input);
        return {
          content: [{ type: "text", text: hash }],
        };
      }
    );
  • Helper utility function DigestUtil.sha256 that computes the SHA-256 hash of the input string using CryptoJS.
    static sha256(input: string): string {
      const hash = CryptoJS.SHA256(input);
      return hash.toString();
    }
Behavior2/5

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. While 'Calculate' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify whether this is deterministic, what the output format is (e.g., hex string), or any performance characteristics. For a cryptographic tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the essential information (calculate, SHA-256, string). Every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete. It states what the tool does but lacks context about when to use it, output format, or security considerations. For a cryptographic hash function, more guidance would be helpful, but it meets basic requirements.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'input' clearly documented as 'The input string to hash'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, but since the schema coverage is complete, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Calculate SHA-256 hash of a string' clearly states the specific action (calculate), the algorithm (SHA-256), and the resource (string). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like md5, sha1, sha224, sha384, and sha512 by specifying the exact hash algorithm.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when SHA-256 is appropriate compared to other hash functions (e.g., MD5 for legacy systems, SHA-512 for higher security) or when to use encoding tools like base64_encode instead. No usage context or exclusions are provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/1595901624/crypto-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server