Skip to main content
Glama
paladini

devutils-mcp-server

hash_sha512

Generate SHA-512 cryptographic hashes from text input to verify data integrity and create secure digital fingerprints for verification purposes.

Instructions

Generate a SHA-512 hash of the given input string.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
inputYesThe string to hash

Implementation Reference

  • The implementation of the 'hash_sha512' MCP tool, which generates a SHA-512 hash using Node's crypto library.
    // SHA-512 hash
    server.tool(
      "hash_sha512",
      "Generate a SHA-512 hash of the given input string.",
      { input: z.string().describe("The string to hash") },
      async ({ input }) => ({
        content: [
          {
            type: "text" as const,
            text: createHash("sha512").update(input).digest("hex"),
          },
        ],
      })
    );
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but omits key behavioral details: it does not specify the output format (hexadecimal string vs. raw bytes), whether the operation is deterministic, or security considerations. Naming the algorithm implies standard behavior but leaves ambiguity on encoding.

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 efficiently communicates the tool's function with zero redundancy. The information is front-loaded and appropriate for the tool's simplicity.

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?

For a single-parameter utility with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is functionally complete, though mentioning the output encoding (hex) would fully close the behavioral gap.

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 description coverage is 100% ('The string to hash'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional semantic context about input constraints (e.g., empty string handling, Unicode normalization) beyond what the schema already 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 uses a specific verb ('Generate') and explicitly names the algorithm (SHA-512) and target ('input string'), clearly distinguishing this from siblings like hash_sha256, hash_md5, and hash_bcrypt.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to select SHA-512 over sibling hashing algorithms (e.g., hash_sha256 for shorter digests, hash_bcrypt for passwords) or when hashing is appropriate versus encoding/encryption tools.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/paladini/devutils-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server