Calculate SHA-256, SHA-1, or RIPEMD-160 hashes from input data for integrity verification and blockchain timestamping.
Calculate the hash of data using the specified algorithm (sha256, sha1, or ripemd160)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | The data to hash (as string) | |
| algorithm | No | Hash algorithm to use | sha256 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state whether the operation is pure/side-effect-free, what the default output format is, or how it relates to the surrounding proof tools. Only the abstract behavior is described.
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?
A single efficient sentence with the verb front-loaded and no redundant filler. It is appropriately sized for a two-parameter utility.
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?
For a simple two-parameter pure function with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It omits return-format expectations and the relationship to the proof-related siblings, which would help an agent place it in the workflow.
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 coverage is 100%, with both parameters fully documented including the enum and default, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description repeats the algorithm values but adds nothing beyond the schema.
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?
States a specific verb (calculate) and resource (hash of data), and enumerates the algorithm options. It does not differentiate from the sibling stamp_hash, which likely also produces a hash-related artifact, but the core purpose is unambiguous.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like stamp_hash, nor any context or prerequisites. The description only states what it does, leaving selection to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.