Underground Cultural District MCP Server

generate-hash

Generate a hash of input text using SHA-256, SHA-512, or MD5. Select the algorithm to produce a cryptographic hash for verification or storage.

Instructions

Hash text with SHA-256, SHA-512, or MD5.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "generate-hash"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`text`	Yes	Text to hash
`algorithm`	No	Algorithm (default: sha256)	sha256

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv4.1.0Apr 17, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided; description does not disclose behavioral traits such as determinism, output format (hex/base64), or security caveats (e.g., MD5 weakness). Minimal transparency beyond core function.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single sentence, highly concise with no redundant words. Efficiently conveys core purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the simple nature of the tool (hashing a string), the description is somewhat adequate but lacks details on output format, security warnings, or edge cases. Could be improved for completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states the tool hashes text with specific algorithms (SHA-256, SHA-512, MD5), distinguishing it from encoding, password generation, or other sibling tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit when-to-use or alternatives provided. The context of hashing vs other transformations is implied but not directly compared to siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.