Generate a cryptographic digest from input text with SHA-256, SHA-1, or MD5. Choose the algorithm to verify data integrity and secure sensitive values.
Generate a hash of the input text using various algorithms
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | Text to hash | |
| algorithm | No | Hash algorithm. Defaults to sha256. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It provides only a minimal statement about generating a hash and does not disclose output format, determinism, one-way nature, or algorithm-specific behavior.
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 with a clear verb-first structure. It is not bloated, though 'using various algorithms' is somewhat vague and could be more specific.
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 tool lacks an output schema and annotations, so the description should explain the return format and practical behavior. It does not state whether the output is a hex string, raw bytes, or base64, which is important for downstream use.
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 baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema, but it does map 'input text' to the text parameter. The algorithm parameter is fully documented by the schema's enum and description.
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 clear verb and resource: 'Generate a hash of the input text'. It distinguishes the tool's function from siblings like base64 or uuid, though it does not explicitly differentiate from similar hash-related tools.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of preferred use cases, exclusions, or comparisons with siblings such as base64 or uuid.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.