MyClaw Toolkit MCP Server

hash

Compute cryptographic hashes for text using MD5, SHA1, SHA256, or SHA512.

Instructions

Generate cryptographic hashes (MD5, SHA1, SHA256, SHA512)

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "hash"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`algorithm`	No	Hash algorithm	sha256
`text`	Yes	Text to hash

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.1Jun 23, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

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. It fails to disclose details like output format (hex string?), determinism, or that no salt is used. Minimal behavioral information.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Single concise sentence with key information. No wasted words, but could benefit from bullet points for algorithms or structure.

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?

For a simple tool with good schema coverage, the description is adequate but minimal. No output schema exists, but the output is straightforward. Lacks context on return format or edge cases.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions, such as 'Text to hash' and 'Hash algorithm'. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it generates cryptographic hashes and lists the supported algorithms, distinguishing it from sibling tools like base64 (encoding) and compare (comparison). However, it could be more specific about the action (e.g., hash text).

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 versus alternatives. Sibling tools include base64 and other utilities, but no context for selection is provided.

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