files_file_hashGet a file's full SHA1 hash to identify content independently of its path. Use this to verify file integrity or detect duplicate files.
Full SHA1 of the file's contents — a stable identifier independent of the file path.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those hints: it specifies the exact hash algorithm (SHA1), that it hashes the entire file contents, and that the result is stable regardless of path. This is meaningful behavioral disclosure for a simple read-only operation.
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 entire description is one sentence with no filler. The key fact (full SHA1) is front-loaded, and the secondary purpose (stable identifier independent of path) follows naturally. Every word contributes value.
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 one-parameter, read-only, idempotent tool with an output schema, the description covers what an agent needs to know: what is hashed, how, and why the result is meaningful. The annotations handle safety, and the output schema handles return values, so nothing essential is missing.
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?
The only parameter is 'path' with no schema description, so schema coverage is 0%. The description's phrase 'the file's contents' implies that path must point to a file, which adds some meaning, but it does not specify path format, relative vs absolute paths, or whether the file must exist. For a single self-explanatory parameter, this is adequate but not exceptional.
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 tool computes the full SHA1 of a file's contents, which is a specific, well-defined operation. It also distinguishes this from file I/O and metadata tools by emphasizing content-based identity independent of the file path.
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 phrase 'stable identifier independent of the file path' provides clear context for when to use this tool — when content identity matters rather than location. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended use case is strongly implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.