Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
io.github.daedalus/mcp-cryptography

io.github.daedalus/mcp-cryptography

by daedalus
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

hash_sha1

Compute SHA-1 hash for legacy compatibility. Returns hex-encoded hash from string input.

Instructions

Compute SHA-1 hash.

Note: SHA-1 is considered cryptographically broken. Use only for legacy compatibility.

Args: data: String to hash.

Returns: Hex-encoded hash.

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": "hash_sha1"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the input is a string and output is hex-encoded hash, and adds a security note about SHA-1 being broken. This is adequate but lacks details like idempotency or potential errors.

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 very concise: a one-sentence purpose, a note, and a simple args/returns list. Every sentence is necessary and front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple one-parameter tool, the description covers the core functionality, output format, and a security consideration. It is nearly complete, though it could mention the output length.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description explains the 'data' parameter as 'String to hash', adding clear meaning beyond the bare schema. Given 0% schema coverage, this is valuable.

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?

The description clearly states 'Compute SHA-1 hash' and includes a note about SHA-1 being broken and for legacy compatibility, which distinguishes it from modern hash functions like hash_sha256 and hash_sha512.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The note explicitly says 'Use only for legacy compatibility', providing clear context on when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives for modern use.

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