Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-devutils

mcp-devutils

by Hhh997921
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

sha256_hash

Compute the SHA-256 hash of a text string to produce a unique 256-bit fingerprint for verification.

Instructions

Compute the SHA256 hash of a text string.

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": "sha256_hash"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYesThe text string to hash.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention the output format (e.g., hexadecimal string) or character encoding assumptions, leaving important behavior undocumented.

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, direct sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The tool is simple and an output schema exists, so the description is minimally viable. However, it lacks usage context, output format specifics, and encoding details, leaving clear gaps in completeness for a fully independent description.

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 input schema already describes the 'text' parameter as 'The text string to hash,' and the tool description repeats the same concept without adding encoding details or constraints. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds minimal extra value beyond the structured field.

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 operation ('Compute') and the specific resource (SHA256 hash of a text string). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like md5_hash and base64_encode by naming the exact algorithm and operation type.

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 over alternatives like md5_hash or base64_encode. There are no explicit conditions or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools