hashGenerates a cryptographic hash of input text using SHA-256, SHA-1, or MD5. Choose algorithm to produce a fixed-length digest for verification or data integrity.
Legacy alias for util.hash (GET /v1/hash). Prefer util.hash.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | Yes | Text to hash. | |
| algo | No | Hash algorithm. | sha256 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.4Input schema / properties / algo / descriptionPrevious value: -"Hash algorithm"New value: +"Hash algorithm."Input schema / properties / q / descriptionPrevious value: -"Text to hash"New value: +"Text to hash."v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that this tool is a legacy alias and a GET endpoint, adding deprecation and routing context beyond the annotations. Read-only/idempotent behavior is already covered by readOnlyHint and idempotentHint.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences carry the essential deprecation and guidance information with no filler. The key point, 'Prefer util.hash', is front and center.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a legacy alias, the description is sufficient: it names the canonical sibling, gives the endpoint, and the schema covers all inputs. It does not describe output format, but that is likely inherited from util.hash and not essential for routing decisions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both q and algo. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so it stays at the schema-supported baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool as a legacy alias for util.hash and gives the canonical GET endpoint. It does not explicitly state the semantic operation ('computes a hash'), but the alias, title, and parameter schema make the purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says 'Prefer util.hash', which directly tells the agent to use the sibling tool instead. This is clear when-to-use guidance with a named alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.