Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Coding Agent MCP Server

Coding Agent MCP Server

by Sukarth
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

hash_text

Generate cryptographic hashes of text using MD5, SHA-1, SHA-256, or SHA-512 with hex or Base64 output.

Instructions

Generate hash of text using various algorithms

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_text"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYesText to hash
algorithmNoHash algorithmsha256
encodingNoOutput encodinghex

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it generates a hash, which implies a deterministic read-only operation, but doesn't elaborate on whether it's idempotent, side-effect-free, or any constraints on input size.

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?

Single sentence, no redundancy. Every word contributes to the purpose.

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

Completeness2/5

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

No output schema exists, but the description does not explain the return format (e.g., string, length). It lacks details on error handling, input size limits, or algorithm characteristics. For a simple tool, more context is needed.

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 each parameter. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 clearly states 'Generate hash of text using various algorithms', which is a specific verb (generate) and resource (hash of text). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like encode_decode or generate_uuid.

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 vs alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or when not to use it.

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