util.hashCompute SHA-256, SHA-1, or MD5 hashes of UTF-8 text, returning hex and base64 for fingerprints and analytics.
GET /v1/hash — hash UTF-8 text (sha256|sha1|md5) to hex + base64. Utility for fingerprints — not crypto advice. Analytics-only utility.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | Yes | Text to hash. Example: 'hello'. | |
| algo | No | Hash algorithm. Default sha256. Example: 'sha256'. | sha256 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it is a GET request, works on UTF-8 text, returns hex and base64 encodings, and is positioned as analytics-only rather than security-critical. No contradictions with annotations.
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 tight sentences, with the method, resource, and output format front-loaded in the first sentence. The second sentence adds positioning without bloat.
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 simple read-only utility with fully documented parameters, the description plus schema is complete: no output schema exists, but the description states what the response will contain (hex + base64). No missing call prerequisites or side-effect warnings.
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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions and examples for q and algo, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the output formats (hex + base64) and clarifies the input is UTF-8 text, which supplements the schema meaning for both parameters.
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?
Description states a concrete operation: 'hash UTF-8 text' via a GET endpoint, enumerates the supported algorithms (sha256|sha1|md5), and specifies output encoding (hex + base64). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling utilities like util.encode and url.normalize.
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?
The phrase 'Utility for fingerprints — not crypto advice' and 'Analytics-only utility' give a clear context: use for non-security fingerprinting and analytics. It doesn't name specific sibling alternatives or formal when-not cases, but the use context is strong enough to route an agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.