devutils-mcp-server

hash_bcrypt

Hash any string using bcrypt with configurable salt rounds (4-16) for secure password storage.

Instructions

Generate a bcrypt hash of the given input string. Useful for password hashing.

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": {
      "input": "<input>"
    },
    "name": "hash_bcrypt"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`input`	Yes	The string to hash
`rounds`	No	Number of salt rounds (4-16, default: 10)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Mar 24, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description is the sole source of behavioral information. It confirms the tool generates a hash but fails to disclose that bcrypt inherently uses a salt (making non-deterministic) and that the output is a fixed-format string. This leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified for an agent.

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?

Two sentences, no redundancy, and the core action is front-loaded. Every word earns its place; there is no extraneous information.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should clarify what the tool returns. It does not mention the output format (e.g., string of length 60) or that bcrypt automatically generates a salt. For a simple tool, the description is adequate but leaves room to inform about expected output behavior.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions, meeting the baseline expectation of 3. It does not explain the effect of 'rounds' or the nature of 'input' beyond what the schema 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Generate', the resource 'bcrypt hash of the given input string', and the intended purpose 'password hashing'. This distinguishes it from sibling hash tools (e.g., hash_sha256) and the verification counterpart hash_bcrypt_verify.

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?

The description implies the tool is for password hashing, which guides usage away from general-purpose hashing. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like other hash functions or bcrypt_verify for verification. The guidance is present but not comprehensive.

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