devutils-mcp-server

hash_sha1

Generate a SHA-1 hash from any input string for data integrity verification or digital signatures.

Instructions

Generate a SHA-1 hash of the given input string.

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_sha1"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`input`	Yes	The string to hash

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Mar 24, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description indicates a pure computation with no side effects, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is stateless or safe, even though no annotations exist to provide such context.

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 a single sentence of 9 words, containing no redundant information and directly conveying the tool's function.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the absence of an output schema, the description should mention the output format (e.g., hex string) and any edge cases. It also lacks contextual guidance among similar sibling tools.

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% and the description of the 'input' parameter is clear. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, and no further constraints or formats are mentioned.

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 explicitly states the action ('Generate') and the specific resource ('SHA-1 hash'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling hash functions like hash_md5 and hash_sha256.

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 SHA-1 versus other hash functions, nor are there any warnings about its cryptographic strength or alternatives, despite multiple sibling tools being available.

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