Skip to main content
Glama
Jambozx

OnlineCyberTools MCP (280+ filterable tools)

crypto_hash_cracker

Read-onlyIdempotent

Crack password hashes via dictionary attack to recover plaintext passwords. Test hashes against a custom wordlist or built-in common passwords for security auditing.

Instructions

Hash cracker (dictionary attack). Recover the plaintext behind a password hash by testing it against a wordlist — a supplied dictionary and/or a built-in common-password list. Use it to audit weak hashes; run crypto_hash_identifier first if the algorithm is unknown, and crypto_password_strength to score a password you already have. Runs locally on the input you provide: read-only, non-destructive, contacts no external service, and is rate-limited. Returns whether a match was found, the recovered password, the detected hash type, the number of attempts, and the elapsed seconds.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hashYesThe hash string to crack, e.g. an MD5/SHA/bcrypt digest.
typeNoHash algorithm. Leave as "auto" to detect it from the hash length/format, or set it explicitly to skip detection.auto
dictionaryNoOptional custom candidate passwords to try first, in order. Combined with the built-in list when useCommonPasswords is true.
useCommonPasswordsNoAlso test a built-in list of the most common passwords. Disable to test only the supplied dictionary.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hashNoThe input hash, echoed back.
typeNoHash algorithm used or detected ("unknown" if undetectable).
foundNoWhether a candidate password matched the hash.
passwordNoThe recovered plaintext password, or null when not found.
attemptsNoNumber of candidate passwords tested.
durationNoElapsed wall-clock time in seconds (rounded to 3 decimals).
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds valuable context: 'Runs locally on the input you provide: read-only, non-destructive, contacts no external service, and is rate-limited.' This goes beyond annotations, though the core behavioral traits are already covered.

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 four sentences, concise and front-loaded. It starts with the core purpose, then usage guidance, then behavioral traits, then return values. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (dictionary attack, multiple options), the description covers purpose, usage, behavioral traits, and explicitly lists the return fields (match found, recovered password, detected hash type, attempts, elapsed seconds). This is complete for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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 detailed descriptions for each parameter (hash, type, dictionary, useCommonPasswords). The description does not add additional semantics beyond summarizing the process (dictionary + built-in list). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents parameters well.

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: 'Hash cracker (dictionary attack). Recover the plaintext behind a password hash by testing it against a wordlist'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like crypto_hash_identifier and crypto_password_strength by specifying when to use them instead, making the purpose unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit guidance is given: 'Use it to audit weak hashes; run crypto_hash_identifier first if the algorithm is unknown, and crypto_password_strength to score a password you already have.' This tells the agent when to use this tool and when to use alternatives, fulfilling the dimension perfectly.

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/Jambozx/onlinecybertools-mcp-server'

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