Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
hackyeaster-solver

hackyeaster-solver

by cloudwarriors-ai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

he_hash

Compute a hash of input data using MD5, SHA1, SHA256, or SHA512 algorithms.

Instructions

Compute a hash of the given data. Algorithms: md5, sha1, sha256, sha512.

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": {
      "data": "<data>"
    },
    "name": "he_hash"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYesData to hash
algorithmNosha256

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the supported hash algorithms but omits behavioral traits such as idempotency, side effects (none expected), performance considerations, or output format. The tool's safety is implied by its nature.

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?

The description is extremely concise—two sentences with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the core functionality and available algorithms.

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?

For a simple hash tool, the description is minimal. It does not specify the output format, error handling, data encoding expectations, or any limitations. Given no output schema, more contextual details would be beneficial.

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 50% (data described, algorithm not). Description adds meaning by listing algorithm options, which compensates for the missing schema description. However, it does not explain the 'data' parameter format or constraints beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states 'Compute a hash of the given data' and lists supported algorithms. The purpose is specific and distinguishable from sibling tools like he_decode and he_transform, though no explicit distinction is made.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, best practices, or scenarios where other tools might be more appropriate.

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