Skip to main content
Glama
doublegate

CyberChef MCP Server

by doublegate

cyberchef_hash_crack

Read-onlyIdempotent

Recover plaintext passwords from fast unsalted hashes using a wordlist, with built-in common passwords and mutations. Refuses slow hashes like bcrypt to avoid false confidence.

Instructions

Recover the plaintext behind a fast unsalted hash from a wordlist: MD5, SHA-1, SHA-256/384/512 and NTLM. Follows hash_identify with the question that matters — is this password one anybody would guess? Deliberately REFUSES bcrypt, scrypt, Argon2, yescrypt and the crypt(3) family BY NAME rather than attempting them, because a pure-JS attempt would find nothing and imply the password was strong. Supply a wordlist; a small common-password list and cheap mutations are built in. Bounded to 20 seconds, about 24 million candidates.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hashesYesThe hashes, as hex. Several share one pass over the wordlist.
wordlistNoCandidates to try, in order. The built-in common list runs first.
algorithmNoWhich digest. `auto` infers it from the hex length and tries every candidate when that is ambiguous, as it is at 32 characters.auto
mutationsNoCapitalise, uppercase, append a digit or year, leetspeak. About 20x the search.
include_commonNoTry the built-in list of the most-used passwords first.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observedv3.6.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnly and idempotent hints; the description adds meaningful runtime behavior: a 20-second bound, about 24 million candidates, a built-in common-password list, cheap mutations, and a deliberate refusal path for memory-hard KDFs so an empty result won't be misread as a strong password. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose, workflow placement, exclusions, input expectations, and time bound. The most decision-relevant information is front-loaded, and the description remains compact despite covering several distinct behaviors.

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?

All invocation-critical details are present: supported algorithms, wordlist handling, mutation toggle, common-password behavior, time bound, and anti-pattern refusal. A small gap is the lack of an output/return description (e.g., what is returned when no candidate matches within the time bound), and there is no output schema to fill that gap.

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 100%, and the schema already explains hashes, wordlist ordering, algorithm auto-inference, mutations, and include_common. The description adds some framing around the wordlist and mutations but does not need to compensate for missing parameter documentation, so the high-coverage baseline of 3 applies.

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 opening sentence names the verb (Recover), the resource (plaintext behind a fast unsalted hash), and the exact hash families (MD5, SHA-1, SHA-256/384/512, NTLM). It also distinguishes it from sibling hash_identify by framing this as the follow-up question, so an agent can tell at a glance what this tool does and how it relates to nearby tools.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly says this follows hash_identify, scopes usage to fast unsalted hashes, and names algorithms it deliberately avoids (bcrypt, scrypt, Argon2, yescrypt, crypt(3)) with the rationale. This gives both when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance without requiring the agent to inspect sibling descriptions.

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

Latest Blog Posts

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/doublegate/CyberChef-MCP'

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