Generate cryptographic hashes (MD5, SHA1, SHA256, SHA384, SHA512) from text to verify integrity or create digests. Specify the algorithm; SHA256 is used by default.
Generate a cryptographic hash (md5, sha1, sha256, sha384, sha512) of text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | Text to hash. | |
| algorithm | No | Hash algorithm (default: sha256). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.11Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations supplied, so the description carries full burden. It says nothing about determinism, output format (hex vs base64), encoding of input text, or that the operation is pure/read-only and side-effect free. It is a pure function, which is low-risk, but the encoding of the return value is a real gap.
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?
One sentence with zero waste, verb and resource front-loaded, algorithm list placed naturally.
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 two-parameter pure function with full schema coverage, the description is roughly sufficient to call it. But without annotations or an output schema, an agent still does not know the output format (hex string? length? case?), which is the one substantive missing piece.
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 100% and both parameters are documented in-schema, including the sha256 default. The description's enumeration of allowed algorithms (md5–sha512) mirrors the schema without adding syntax or constraints, so baseline 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?
Specific verb (Generate) plus resource (cryptographic hash) plus enumerated algorithm set. Unambiguous and instantly distinguishable from siblings like base64_encode or jwt_decode.
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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (e.g., hash_compare for verification, crc32_calculate for non-cryptographic use). The agent must infer applicability from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.