Hash Generator — Compute MD5, SHA-1, SHA-256, and SHA-512 hashes of text (or an uploaded file). Always returns all four — there is no algorithm selection and bcrypt is not supported. [category: generate]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file | No | Optional file to hash instead of text. | |
| text | Yes | Text to hash. Required unless 'file' is provided. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses key behavior beyond the sparse annotations: it always returns all four hash types, there is no algorithm selection, and bcrypt is not supported. It does not describe the exact output format, but the core behavioral expectations are clear.
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?
The description is compact and well-ordered: purpose and supported algorithms come first, followed by behavioral constraints. Every sentence carries useful information with no padding.
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 two-parameter tool, the description covers accepted inputs, supported algorithms, and key constraints. However, the unresolved text-versus-file requirement conflict and the lack of any output shape detail leave enough ambiguity that an agent may struggle to invoke the tool correctly on file-only inputs.
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?
The schema already documents both parameters, so the baseline is 3, but the description fails to clarify a real ambiguity: the schema marks 'text' as required while both the tool description and the text parameter's own description imply 'text' can be omitted when 'file' is provided. An agent cannot confidently determine whether file-only invocation is valid.
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 states a specific verb and resource: computing MD5, SHA-1, SHA-256, and SHA-512 hashes of text or an uploaded file. It also distinguishes itself by explicitly noting that it always returns all four hashes and does not support algorithm selection or bcrypt.
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 description clearly indicates what inputs the tool accepts (text or file) and gives an exclusion: no algorithm selection and no bcrypt. However, it does not name an alternative tool or explicitly state when a user should choose a different tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Multiple tool pairs are near-identical: octopus_mkdir/octopus_make_folder and octopus_move/octopus_move_file are literal duplicates, analyze_hash/generate_hash both compute hashes, convert_word_to_pdf overlaps convert_document, and photo_compress/photo_compress_to_size plus pdf_thumbnails/pdf_to_images have fuzzy boundaries. The descriptions are detailed and cross-reference each other helpfully, but at 144 tools an agent will regularly misselect.
The dominant {category}_{verb}_{object} snake_case pattern (pdf_*, photo_*, convert_*, analyze_*, media_*) is largely consistent and predictable. However, outliers like chatwithyourpdf and describe_image break the category-prefix convention, and the octopus namespace mixes bare verbs (read, write, mkdir) with verb_noun forms (make_folder, move_file, search_meta) inconsistently.
144 tools is an extreme count for any MCP server. The broad scope (PDF, photo, video, audio, conversion, analysis, generation, file storage, web, e-sign) justifies some volume, but the count is inflated by batch and inspect variants (pdf_to_excel + batch + inspect), duplicate tools, and overlapping converters. An agent faces an overwhelming selection surface.
Per-domain coverage is remarkably deep: PDF spans merge/split/compress/protect/unlock/metadata/OCR/watermark and bidirectional conversion; photo covers editing, format conversion, face handling, OCR, and collage; file storage has full CRUD plus search. Minor gaps exist (no audio transcription, no video metadata editing, no deletion of PDF pages is actually covered via pdf_delete_pages) but the surface has no dead ends for its declared domains.
