hash_textCompute MD5, SHA1, or SHA256 hex digests from UTF-8 text (max 64 KB) locally for IOC and file lookups, keeping input private.
Compute the md5, sha1 or sha256 hex digest of UTF-8 text locally (max 64 KB).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | Text to hash (UTF-8), max 64 KB | |
| algorithm | No | Hash algorithm. md5 and sha1 are for IOC/file lookups, not security. | sha256 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld=false/non-destructive. The description adds genuine value beyond them: the operation happens "locally" (no network egress, relevant for sensitive text) and is capped at 64 KB, both of which affect how an agent should prepare input.
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 no filler; the algorithm list and the size constraint both earn their place.
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 pure, deterministic, two-parameter tool with full annotation and schema coverage, nothing essential is missing; "hex digest" even covers the return type in the absence of an output schema. Minor gap: no guidance on default algorithm selection rationale.
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% and includes the enum values, defaults, and the security caveat on md5/sha1, so the description's restatement of algorithms and the 64 KB cap adds nothing new. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.
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?
Specific verb ("Compute") plus resource ("md5, sha1 or sha256 hex digest of UTF-8 text") with a scope qualifier ("locally"). No sibling offers hashing, so the tool is unambiguously distinguishable from lookup_cve, parse_log_line, etc.
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 "locally" qualifier and size cap imply context (offline, small inputs), but there is no explicit statement of when to pick md5 vs sha1 vs sha256 or when not to use this tool. Usage must be inferred rather than read.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.