Compute cryptographic hashes (MD5, SHA1, SHA256, CRC32) for a binary file or a specific address range to verify integrity or identify content.
Compute cryptographic hashes of the binary or a specific address range.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| size | No | Number of bytes to hash from address | |
| address | No | Start address for range hash (requires size) | |
| algorithm | No | Hash algorithm to use | sha256 |
| binary_path | Yes | Absolute path to the binary file |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It accurately conveys a read-only computation over the binary or a range, but it does not disclose output format, the default behavior when no address/size is provided, or algorithm default behavior. These are not contradictions, but they are notable gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It names both supported modes in a compact form, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is adequate for a simple hash tool but leaves some behavior unspecified: whether hashing the whole binary is the default, whether range hashing requires both address and size, and what the return value looks like. The schema covers parameter semantics, but the absence of an output schema and annotations makes these gaps more significant.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already well documented. The description adds only the general 'binary or address range' idea, which maps to binary_path and address/size but does not add meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Compute') and a clear resource ('cryptographic hashes of the binary') while also identifying the optional address-range scope. This distinguishes it from siblings like read_bytes, get_entropy, and analyze_binary, which perform different operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly conveys the intended use: computing hashes for either a whole binary or a specific address range. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the operation is narrow enough that an agent can infer when to select this tool; no misleading guidance is present.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.