agent-utils-mcp

tool_hash_generate

Generate MD5, SHA-256, or SHA-512 hash from input text. Select the algorithm to compute a secure digest for data integrity or verification.

Instructions

Generate hash (md5, sha256, sha512) of input text.

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": "tool_hash_generate"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`text`	Yes
`algorithm`	No		sha256

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It is accurate and conveys the core operation, but does not disclose output format (e.g., hex digest case/encoding), determinism, or error behavior. These are fairly standard for a hash tool, but the description does not add behavioral context beyond the meaning of 'hash'.

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?

One concise, front-loaded sentence with no waste. It states the operation, the resource, and the supported variants immediately, earning its place.

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?

For a simple pure function with two parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential invocation information. The output schema handles return-value details, and the description names algorithms and input, making it complete enough for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It names the 'input text' and lists the three algorithm options, which maps to both parameters. However, it does not explicitly indicate that 'text' is required or that the algorithm defaults to sha256 (the schema does carry that). The description adds meaning but does not fully detail parameter semantics.

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 uses a specific verb 'Generate' and a clear resource 'input text', names the exact algorithms (md5, sha256, sha512) and is immediately distinguishable from siblings like base64_encode, base64_decode, or uuid_generate. An agent can understand exactly what action this tool performs.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description clearly states what the tool does, so its use case is implied: hash text with one of three algorithms. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it, leaving alternative-selection to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server