md5_lookupResolve an MD5 hash to the matching Nexus Mods mod and file. Find which uploaded file corresponds to a given checksum.
Identify a mod file from its MD5 hash (returns mod + file). For a batch of hashes use graphql_query with fileHashes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| md5 | Yes | MD5 hex digest | |
| game | Yes | Game domain name as in site URLs, e.g. "skyrimspecialedition", "fallout4", "stardewvalley" |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return behavior ('returns mod + file') which is useful context beyond the annotations. No contradictions found.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with zero fluff. The purpose is front-loaded, and the alternative usage is stated concisely. Every word contributes to clarity and routing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple 2-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, input, and alternative. It does not describe error handling or multiple-match behavior, but these are minor for a read-only lookup. The annotation set and schema fill most gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (md5 and game) are already fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any parameter-specific guidance, which aligns with the baseline of 3 when the schema carries the load.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'identify', the resource 'mod file', the input 'MD5 hash', and the output 'mod + file'. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly naming graphql_query for batch operations, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides an explicit usage boundary: use this tool for a single hash, and for a batch of hashes use graphql_query with fileHashes. This directly addresses when to use this tool vs an alternative, leaving no ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.