Submit a hex-encoded hash to OpenTimeStamps calendar servers for timestamping, creating a verifiable proof on the Bitcoin blockchain.
Submit a hash for timestamping using OpenTimeStamps calendar servers
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hash | Yes | Hex-encoded hash to timestamp | |
| algorithm | No | Hash algorithm used | 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 must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses the external OpenTimeStamps calendar servers as the backend, but says nothing about side effects, authentication requirements, network behavior, failure modes, or whether the submission is persistent or reversible.
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 or repetition. It is efficient, though it could do slightly more to structure usage context without becoming verbose.
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?
Given no annotations and no output schema, the description should convey more about what happens after submission and what the agent receives. It states the action and backend but omits usage context, behavioral expectations, and return-value information, leaving significant gaps for an agent to call it correctly.
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 input schema already documents both parameters fully, including the hex-encoded format and the algorithm enum with default. The description adds no parameter details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 states a specific verb ('Submit') and resource ('a hash for timestamping') plus the backend ('OpenTimeStamps calendar servers'), so the tool's basic action is clear. It implicitly distinguishes from calculate_hash by saying the hash is already formed, but it does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling tool.
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 provides no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. It never mentions that a hash should first be produced with calculate_hash, nor when timestamping is appropriate versus verifying or loading existing proofs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.