Compute a cryptographic hash digest of any text using MD5, SHA-1, SHA-256, SHA-384, or SHA-512. Select the algorithm to produce a checksum for integrity verification or secure storage.
Compute a hash digest of text (md5, sha1, sha256, sha384, sha512)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| algo | No | ||
| text | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the algorithms but does not describe the output format (e.g., hex string, encoding) or any side effects (none, but agents may not know it's pure). It does not mention that the function is deterministic or that it accepts only string text. This is a gap for a computation tool.
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, concise sentence that fronts the purpose and includes the list of algorithms. No fluff, every word contributes. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool.
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 the tool has only 2 parameterseur, one required, and no output schema, the description is mostly complete for basic usage. However, it omits output format details (e.g., hex string) and does not clarify whether the 'algo' parameter has a default e.g., sha256? The anonymity of the algorithm list helps, but defining the return type would make it fully complete.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'algo' parameter by listing valid algorithm names)Skip providing clarity on what 'algo' means. However, it does not explain the 'text' parameter beyond the name, though 'text' is self-explanatory. The description adds significant value for 'algo' but not for 'text', so a 4 is appropriate given the heavy schema gap.
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 clearly states the action (compute a hash digest) and the resource (text), and lists the supported algorithms. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like base64_encode or generate_uuid, which are all in the utility/computation domain. No ambiguity.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the context is clear: hashing text is a distinct operation. It doesn't mention when not to use it, but the tool's uniqueness among siblings makes it easy to infer. However, there is no guidance on algorithm choice or security considerations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.