devutils-mcp-server

hash_sha256

Generate a SHA-256 hash of any input string to verify data integrity or produce a fixed-size fingerprint.

Instructions

Generate a SHA-256 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_sha256"
  }
}

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

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Description implies a pure function with no side effects, consistent with hash operations. However, without annotations, it does not explicitly state that the output is a hex string or mention reversibility (irreversible). Adequate but could be more detailed.

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, direct, no filler. Efficiently conveys the essential information.

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?

Adequate for a simple hashing tool with one parameter. Describes input and action, but lacks explicit output format (e.g., 64-character hex string) and error conditions. Still reasonably complete given tool simplicity.

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 covers the only parameter 'input' with description 'The string to hash'. Description adds no extra semantics beyond schema. Baseline of 3 due to 100% schema coverage.

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?

Clearly states the action (generate hash) and the algorithm (SHA-256) and input. Distinguishes from siblings like hash_md5, hash_sha1, etc. by specifying algorithm.

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 on when to use SHA-256 versus other hash algorithms (e.g., for security vs. speed). No mention of alternatives or scenarios.

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