Generate the MD5 hash hex digest of a text string for checksums, integrity checks, or value comparison. Supply input text and receive its 32-character hex digest.
Return the MD5 hash hex digest of a string.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, but it only discloses the output form ('hex digest'). It omits other behavioral traits such as determinism, side-effect freedom, and any input-length or encoding assumptions. For a trivially pure function the gap is modest, but it is not fully covered.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; every word contributes to describing the operation and its output form.
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?
An output schema exists, so the return value needn't be explained, and for a one-parameter pure function the description is nearly sufficient. The remaining shortfall is the lack of any variant/alternative guidance relative to encoding_sha256.
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 0% for the single 'text' parameter, so the burden falls on the description, which only says the hash is 'of a string' — effectively restating the schema's string type. It does not clarify encoding/charset handling or length constraints, so it only partially compensates.
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 names a specific verb+resource (compute/return the MD5 hash of a string) and the algorithm, which separates it from the sibling encoding_sha256. It is clear what the tool does; only the sibling comparison is implicit rather than stated.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use MD5 versus the sibling encoding_sha256, or any condition (e.g. non-cryptographic checksumming) that selects this tool. The agent must infer the choice purely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.