devutils-mcp-server

hash_bcrypt_verify

Verify a plain text string against a bcrypt hash. Returns true if the string matches, false otherwise. Use for password validation and authentication.

Instructions

Verify a string against a bcrypt hash. Returns true if matches.

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>",
      "hash": "<hash>"
    },
    "name": "hash_bcrypt_verify"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`input`	Yes	The plain text string
`hash`	Yes	The bcrypt hash to verify against

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Mar 24, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It states the return type (boolean) but does not disclose error handling (e.g., invalid hash format, wrong algorithm), performance characteristics, or side effects. The description is adequate but lacks depth for a security-critical tool.

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?

The description is extremely concise, consisting of two sentences that cover the action, resource, and outcome. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy or filler.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity and full schema coverage, the description is nearly complete. It explains the verification action and result. However, it could mention that it uses the bcrypt algorithm specifically, and that false is returned on mismatch (implicit but clear). Minor gap, but overall sufficient.

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?

The input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters ('The plain text string' and 'The bcrypt hash to verify against'). The description adds no additional semantic information beyond what the schema provides, earning the baseline score of 3.

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 'verify', the resource 'a string against a bcrypt hash', and the return value 'Returns true if matches'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like hash_bcrypt (which generates hashes) and other hash verification tools.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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 like hash_bcrypt or other hash verification tools. The description does not specify prerequisites, security considerations, or common pitfalls, such as the need to ensure the hash is indeed a bcrypt hash.

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