mcp-hashlib

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.2
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: specific hash algorithms, incremental update, file digest, key derivation, and general factory. No overlapping functionality.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent 'hash_' prefix and snake_case naming, with algorithm names lowercase and verbs for operations. Perfectly uniform.
Tool Count5/5
22 tools cover a broad range of hashing operations without being excessive; each tool serves a necessary function in the domain.
Completeness5/5
Includes major hash algorithms, key derivation functions, file hashing, incremental updates, and utility tools. No obvious gaps for a general-purpose hashing server.
Average 2.4/5 across 22 of 22 tools scored. Lowest: 1.6/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on April 13, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description must disclose behavior. It doesn't mention that scrypt is a password-based key derivation function, its one-way nature, or that output is a derived key of length dklen. Critical behavioral details are omitted.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely short but underspecified. A two-word description fails to provide essential information. Conciseness should not come at the expense of clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 6 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return values despite having an output schema, leaving the agent without actionable context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 0% description coverage for its 6 parameters. The description adds no explanation for 'n' (CPU/memory cost), 'r' (block size), 'p' (parallelization), or 'dklen'. Agent cannot infer correct parameter usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states 'Scrypt key derivation', which identifies the algorithm and operation. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tool 'hash_pbkdf2_hmac' which also performs key derivation, missing specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Lacks any context about advantages, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description is purely a label.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must carry full burden for behavioral disclosure. It fails entirely: no mention that SHA-512 is a cryptographic, one-way, deterministic hash with fixed 512-bit output. No details about security, speed, or side effects. The description contradicts no annotations but is extremely deficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely concise at only three words, but this is under-specification, not effective conciseness. Important information is missing. A tool description should earn its sentences, but here the single sentence fails to provide minimum utility.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool is part of a large family of 22 hash functions, the description provides no context to differentiate SHA-512 from siblings. No mention of output format, return value (though output schema exists), or any distinguishing characteristics. Incomplete for an AI agent to select correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no information about the two parameters ('data' and 'usedforsecurity'). The agent must infer meaning from parameter names alone. A helpful description would explain the role of each parameter, especially 'usedforsecurity' which has a default and is non-obvious.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Compute SHA512 hash', which identifies the specific algorithm and action. However, it's minimal and doesn't reinforce the purpose beyond the name. It distinguishes from siblings like hash_md5 or hash_sha256 by naming SHA512, but could be clearer by specifying it computes a cryptographic hash of input data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use SHA-512 versus other hash functions in the sibling list. The description lacks any context about appropriate use cases, prerequisites, or alternatives. This is critical given the large family of similar tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but fails to disclose key behavioral traits: return format (hex, binary?), allowed algorithm values, error handling, or side effects. The one-line description adds no behavioral context beyond the name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (5 words) but under-specified for a tool with two parameters and many siblings. Conciseness should not sacrifice essential information; here it is too brief to be useful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description is critically incomplete. It omits explanation of input format, algorithm options, and usage context. For a tool with 2 parameters and 0% schema coverage, this minimal description is far from adequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. However, it does not clarify what 'data' represents (file content? path?) or what 'algorithm' accepts (only default sha256 shown in schema). No enum or acceptable values are given, leaving the agent to guess.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Compute hash of a file-like object', which is a verb+resource indicating hash computation. However, it's vague about what 'file-like object' means (e.g., file path, bytes) and does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like hash_sha256 or hash_md5, which likely have fixed algorithms. The purpose is clear enough but lacks specificity.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus the many algorithm-specific sibling tools (e.g., hash_sha256, hash_md5). The description does not mention alternatives or context for selection, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'Compute SHA1 hash', failing to mention output format (e.g., hex string), determinism, or side effects. The existence of an output schema is not leveraged in the description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (4 words) but achieves this by omitting necessary information. It is under-specified rather than efficiently concise, sacrificing functional clarity for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the many sibling hash tools, no annotations, and an output schema, the description fails to explain the tool's role or how it differs from alternatives. It provides no context for selection or invocation, making it nearly useless for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description provides no explanation for the 'data' or 'usedforsecurity' parameters. The default of 'usedforsecurity=true' lacks any context, making it impossible for an agent to understand its purpose.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Compute SHA1 hash' states the specific verb and resource (SHA1 hash), distinguishing it from siblings by algorithm name. However, it lacks any additional context about what the hash is computed from or the nature of the result, leaving the purpose somewhat vague.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus other hash algorithms (e.g., SHA256, MD5). The parameter 'usedforsecurity' hints at security implications, but the description does not explain when or why this tool should be chosen.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'create a copy' without mentioning whether this is a mutation, what side effects occur, or whether the original hash object is unchanged.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified and lacks structure. It does not front-load key information about the hash object or the copying operation.
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?
Given the number of sibling tools and the presence of an output schema (unseen), the description is incomplete. It fails to differentiate from hash_new or explain the role of parameters in the copy operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names. It does not explain what 'algorithm' and 'data' represent or how they relate to copying a hash object.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the tool creates a copy of a hash object, but does not clarify what a hash object is or how this differs from creating a new hash with hash_new. The verb 'create a copy' is somewhat specific but the resource is ambiguous, especially among many hash siblings.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like hash_new, hash_update, or the specific algorithm hashes. There are no context signals or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention that MD5 is cryptographically broken, which is a key behavior trait. It also does not describe side effects, permissions, or output format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (three words), but it is under-specified rather than concise. It fails to earn its place by omitting essential context. A single sentence without structure is insufficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 20+ sibling tools, a boolean parameter with default true, and known security issues with MD5, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not address output schema, security implications, or how this tool fits into the broader set.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
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 provides no explanation for 'data' or 'usedforsecurity' beyond the raw schema. The boolean 'usedforsecurity' defaults to true but its meaning is left ambiguous.
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 the action 'Compute' and the specific resource 'MD5 hash', distinguishing it from sibling hash functions by name. However, it does not elaborate on the specific characteristics of MD5 vs other hashes, missing a chance for full differentiation.
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 provided on when to use MD5 versus other hash functions like SHA-256 or Blake2. Also, no mention of security considerations or the 'usedforsecurity' parameter, which is critical given MD5's known vulnerabilities.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'Get properties', implying a read operation, but does not mention error conditions, side effects, or what happens if the algorithm is unknown.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, but it is too terse to be informative. It sacrifices clarity for brevity, lacking structured details like examples or parameter explanations.
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 tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description should at least specify the input format and what properties are returned. It fails to do so, making it incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage for the only parameter 'algorithm'. The description does not explain valid values, format, or any constraints, leaving the agent to guess.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get properties of a hash algorithm' clearly states the action and resource, but it is vague about what 'properties' means. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'hash_info', which might serve a similar purpose.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 22 sibling tools, the description fails to provide context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations given, so description must disclose behavior. Only states compute hash, no info on side effects, authentication, rate limits, or output format. For a hash tool, it's very minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single short sentence, front-loaded. Acceptable length but lacks important details, making it borderline too brief.
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?
Given presence of many sibling tools and output schema, description fails to provide context: no explanation of output format, parameter defaults, or when to use this specific algorithm.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and description adds no meaning for parameters 'data' or 'digest_size'. Agent must guess format or constraints from name and defaults.
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 action (Compute) and resource (BLAKE2s hash) with bit length. However, it does not differentiate from sibling hash_blake2b, so agent may be unsure which to use.
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 on when to use this tool versus other hash functions (e.g., blake2b, sha256). No prerequisites or exclusions provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It only states creation but doesn't mention side effects, memory, or that the hash object can be updated. This is insufficient for safe usage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it is too brief, omitting critical details. It achieves conciseness at the expense of completeness.
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?
Given the presence of 3 parameters, no schema coverage, and an output schema that is not explained, the description fails to convey the overall purpose and usage flow. It does not clarify what a 'hash object' is or how it can be used subsequently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names. It does not explain acceptable values for 'algorithm', format of 'data', or the effect of the 'hex' boolean.
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 the verb 'Create' and the resource 'hash object', and notes it uses any algorithm. This is clear, but it does not distinguish from sibling tools like hash_md5 or hash_sha256, which also create hash objects but for specific algorithms.
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 provided on when to use this generic tool versus the specific algorithm-sibling tools. The description lacks context for choosing this over alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but provides minimal information. It does not disclose that PBKDF2 is computationally expensive, requires careful salt handling, or other behavioral traits like output format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (4 words), which is efficient but lacks necessary detail. It is not overly verbose, but the brevity compromises completeness.
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 tool with 5 parameters, no schema documentation, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. Although an output schema exists, the description itself fails to provide enough context for proper use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 5 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description adds no meaning. Parameters like password, salt, iterations, dklen, hash_name are not explained (e.g., expected encoding, units, or valid ranges).
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 'PBKDF2-HMAC key derivation' clearly identifies the tool's purpose as key derivation using PBKDF2-HMAC. However, it does not differentiate it from sibling tools like hash_scrypt, which also performs key derivation.
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 like scrypt or other hash functions. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic function but fails to mention statefulness, side effects, or required prior initialization. The 'incremental' nature is implied but not explained.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but lacks necessary details. It is front-loaded with the key action, but the structure is minimal and could be expanded without losing conciseness.
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?
Given the presence of an output schema and 3 parameters with no description coverage, the description is insufficient. It omits crucial context about incremental behavior, required prior state, and how updates accumulate. The sibling tools suggest a broader hashing workflow that is not addressed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain any parameters. It fails to clarify the meaning of 'algorithm', 'data_parts', or 'hex' beyond their schema types. This is a significant gap.
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 the tool computes hash incrementally with multiple updates, distinguishing it from sibling tools that compute a single hash in one go. The verb 'compute' and resource 'hash incrementally' are specific. However, it could be more precise about the incremental update context.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like hash_new or hash_final. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a prior hash object) or any exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must fully inform the agent about behaviors. However, it only states the basic function without disclosing any behavioral traits such as output format, determinism, side effects, or the impact of the 'usedforsecurity' parameter. This is insufficient for informed invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (three words), which is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It lacks essential detail and does not front-load key information for tool selection or parameter handling.
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?
Given the presence of an output schema (not shown) and simple function, the description is still too sparse. It does not explain return values, error states, or the significance of 'usedforsecurity'. The context of sibling hash tools underscores the need for differentiation, which is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should explain parameter meanings. It does not: 'data' is untyped beyond being a string (e.g., encoding unclear), and 'usedforsecurity' has no explanation of its effect (e.g., FIPS compliance). The agent cannot infer correct usage from the description alone.
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 'Compute SHA256 hash' clearly states the verb (compute) and the specific resource (SHA256 hash), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like hash_sha1 or hash_md5. The name itself is also highly descriptive.
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 usage guidelines are provided. There is no mention of when to use SHA256 versus other hash algorithms (e.g., for security vs. non-security purposes), despite the 'usedforsecurity' parameter hinting at such considerations. The agent is left without direction on tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description adds no behavioral details beyond the name. Lacks disclosure of input constraints, output format, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Extremely short (4 words) but fails to add value beyond the tool name. Sacrifices informativeness for brevity.
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?
Despite output schema existence, description lacks essential context like input encoding, hex output, or size limits. Incomplete for a 1-parameter hash tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage 0% and description omits any parameter explanation. 'data' parameter's purpose, format, and encoding are completely unspecified.
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?
Description uses specific verb 'Compute' and resource 'SHA3-384 hash', clearly stating the tool's function. It uniquely identifies this hash algorithm among siblings.
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 on when to use SHA3-384 over other hash tools (e.g., SHA-256, SHA-512). Missing context about security level, performance, or compatibility.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It only notes variable length but omits performance characteristics, security properties, or side effects. The tool is likely a pure compute with no destructive behavior, but this is not stated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, but it is too brief and could include more relevant information without being verbose.
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?
Given the large sibling set and no annotations, the description lacks context about how XOF differs from other hashes, output format, or usage examples. The output schema exists but doesn't compensate for the lack of textual guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain parameters. It relates 'variable length' to output_length but doesn't clarify that data expects a string or that output_length defaults to 64. No additional meaning 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?
The description clearly states computing a SHAKE-256 XOF hash and mentions variable length, which distinguishes it from fixed-length hashes like SHA-256. However, it doesn't explain what XOF means, leaving some ambiguity.
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 such as hash_shake_128 or other hash functions. There is no mention of trade-offs or contexts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the general purpose but fails to mention that the tool lists algorithms, returns their names, or whether it requires any permissions. The output format or side effects are not hinted.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, which is efficient but lacks sufficient detail. It achieves conciseness at the expense of completeness, earning a middling score.
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?
Despite being a simple tool, the description is too sparse. With one parameter and an output schema, it should at least indicate that 'info_type' controls the scope of information. The absence of parameter/return details makes it incomplete for reliable agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description does not mention the 'info_type' parameter, its default value, or possible values. The agent gains no semantic understanding of how to use the parameter from the description.
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 clearly states the tool's action ('Get information') and resource ('available hash algorithms'). It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools that compute specific hashes, as it provides an overview of available algorithms.
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?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like hash_properties. It lacks contextual cues about prerequisites or situational use, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, and the description only says 'Compute SHA224 hash.' It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any side effects, or the meaning of the 'usedforsecurity' parameter.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (one sentence), which is concise but lacks structure. It earns its place by stating the core function, but misses additional necessary details.
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?
With two parameters and many sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain inputs, output, or usage context, and lacks any behavioral or parameter details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%; the description adds no information about parameters. The 'data' and 'usedforsecurity' parameters are not explained, leaving their purpose ambiguous.
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 clearly states it computes a SHA224 hash, specifying the exact algorithm. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that compute different hash algorithms (e.g., SHA1, SHA256).
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 provided on when to use SHA224 versus other hash algorithms. There is no mention of security considerations, algorithm strength, or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states 'Compute SHA3-512 hash' without mentioning determinism, side effects, or that it is a pure read operation. For a hash function, this is minimal but not misleading.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise (3 words), which is efficient but omits critical details. It could be longer without losing conciseness to include parameter or behavioral context.
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?
Given the tool has one parameter and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to clarify input format or output representation, leaving the agent to infer or guess.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage. The single parameter 'data' is not explained—no information on expected format (e.g., string encoding, binary vs. text) or constraints. The description adds nothing to the schema.
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 clearly identifies the tool as computing a SHA3-512 hash, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like hash_sha256 and hash_md5 by naming the exact algorithm.
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 provided on when to use this hash function versus others (e.g., security requirements, performance trade-offs). The agent receives no context about appropriate use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. Only states 'Compute SHA3-256 hash' without mentioning output format, determinism, or anything beyond the name. Lacks details for safe invocation.
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?
Extremely concise single sentence with no wasted words. Front-loaded and immediately clear, though minimal.
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?
Despite presence of an output schema (not visible), the description is too sparse for the context: 22 sibling tools, no usage guidance, and no parameter details. Inadequate for an agent to use correctly without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% with one required 'data' parameter of type string. Description does not explain what 'data' represents (e.g., string to hash, encoding expected). The tool name implies input, but not sufficiently.
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 states 'Compute SHA3-256 hash', which clearly identifies the action and algorithm. Differentiates from sibling tools like hash_sha256 or hash_sha3_224 by the specific hash name, though the title is null.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 22 sibling tools covering various hash functions, the description does not help an agent choose this one.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Given no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states 'Compute' without indicating whether this is a read-only operation (likely), but no mention of side effects, allowed input formats, or output characteristics. The output schema exists but is not described.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise—a single phrase. It efficiently conveys the core purpose, but could include more detail without becoming verbose. The structure is front-loaded and clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, the description is not required to detail return values. However, for a tool among many hash siblings, it lacks context about the nature of the hash, constraints, or typical use, making it minimally complete.
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?
The schema for 'data' and 'digest_size' lacks descriptions. The description adds minimal value by noting '512-bit' output, implying digest_size default 64 corresponds to 64 bytes, but does not clarify unit or data format. With 0% schema coverage, the description partially compensates but not fully.
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 the verb 'Compute' and the specific hash algorithm 'BLAKE2b' with output size '512-bit'. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like hash_sha256 by algorithm name, but does not elaborate on use cases or why one might choose this over other hashes.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like hash_sha256, hash_sha3_512, etc. The description lacks context on the algorithm's properties (e.g., performance, security) or scenarios where BLAKE2b is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention the output format, input encoding constraints, or that the operation is deterministic and side-effect-free. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the obvious.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. However, it is slightly too minimal given the need for parameter clarification. Still, it earns a high conciseness score for avoiding fluff.
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?
Despite having an output schema, the description does not reference the return value or any constraints (e.g., input length limits). For a simple tool, it covers the basic action but lacks completeness for an agent to invoke without additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage for the sole parameter 'data'. The description 'Compute SHA3-224 hash' does not explain what 'data' expects (e.g., raw bytes, hex string, base64). This is a significant gap for an agent to use correctly.
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 clearly states the action ('Compute') and the specific resource ('SHA3-224 hash'), making it easy to distinguish from sibling hash tools. The verb and resource are explicit.
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 provided on when to use this hash variant over siblings like SHA3-256 or SHA3-512. There is no mention of use cases, security levels, or comparisons.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It only states the operation but does not mention that the function is pure, deterministic, or that it has no side effects. The 'usedforsecurity' parameter's effect is unexplained.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence with no redundancy. However, it is overly brief given the lack of structured documentation.
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?
Given the output schema (not shown) and sibling diversity, the description does not provide enough context. It fails to explain output format or when to prefer this hash over others.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description adds no information about parameters. The 'data' parameter type and expected format are not clarified, and 'usedforsecurity' remains ambiguous despite its boolean nature.
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?
Description clearly states 'Compute SHA384 hash', which is a specific verb-resource pair. The tool name itself distinguishes it from sibling hash functions, making its purpose unambiguous.
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 provided on when to use SHA384 over other hash functions (e.g., SHA256, SHA512). The description does not help the agent choose between siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'variable length', omitting key traits like that output_length controls byte count, that data is the input, or that it's a cryptographic hash. No side effects or dangers are mentioned.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, very concise and front-loaded with the action. It could benefit from additional structure (e.g., listing parameters), but it is not verbose.
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?
Given the existence of an output schema, return values need not be explained, but the description fails to provide essential behavioral context like the nature of the hash, default output length, or any limitations. For a tool with no annotations and 2 parameters, it is incomplete.
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?
The description's mention of 'variable length' provides some context for the output_length parameter, adding value beyond the schema which has 0% description coverage. However, it does not explain the data parameter meaning or the units for output_length, leaving gaps.
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 identifies the tool as computing SHAKE-128, an extendable-output function, and mentions variable-length output. This distinguishes it from fixed-length hash siblings like hash_sha256, but does not explicitly differentiate from hash_shake_256 beyond algorithm name.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus other hash siblings. The description lacks any context about use cases, prerequisites, or scenarios where this algorithm is preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-hashlib MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/daedalus/mcp-hashlib/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/daedalus/mcp-hashlib)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mcp-hashlib MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/daedalus/mcp-hashlib/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/daedalus/mcp-hashlib)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/daedalus/mcp-hashlib'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server