toolkit-mcp-server

toolkit-mcp-server: hash value

toolkit_hash_value

Read-onlyIdempotent

Generate a cryptographic digest of a value, or verify a value against an expected digest. Set operation to "generate" for a lowercase-hex digest, or "compare" to constant-time-check value against the expected digest — compare is timing-safe and avoids manual string equality checks. Algorithm defaults to sha256; sha512 is also secure, while md5 and sha1 are exposed for checksum and file-integrity compatibility ONLY and must not be used for passwords, signatures, or any security purpose. inputEncoding controls how value and expected are read before hashing (utf8 default, or hex/base64 for raw binary data) so binary blobs need no decode round-trip. The canonical use is matching a download against a vendor-published checksum.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`value`	Yes	The data to hash, interpreted per inputEncoding (raw text by default).
`expected`	No	The expected lowercase-hex digest to compare against. Required when operation is "compare".
`algorithm`	No	Digest algorithm. sha256 (default) or sha512 for security; md5/sha1 are checksum/compat only — not for security.	sha256
`operation`	No	"generate" produces a digest; "compare" constant-time-checks value against expected.	generate
`inputEncoding`	No	How value (and expected's pre-image, when relevant) is decoded before hashing: utf8 text, hex, or base64.	utf8

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`error`	No	Present when the call failed. Absent on success.
`digest`	No	Lowercase-hex digest of value. Present for operation "generate".
`matches`	No	Constant-time equality of the computed digest against expected. Present for operation "compare".
`algorithm`	No	The algorithm used.
`operation`	No	The operation performed.
`lengthInBytes`	No	Digest size in bytes (32 for sha256, 64 for sha512, 20 for sha1, 16 for md5). Present for "generate".

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

Changed6 schema fields changedAug 22, 2026

changedInput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

addedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```

changedOutput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

addedOutput schema / anyOf

Added value: +[
+  {
+    "not": {
+      "required": [
+        "error"
+      ]
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "algorithm",
+      "operation"
+    ]
+  },
+  {
+    "required": [
+      "error"
+    ]
+  }
+]

addedOutput schema / properties / error

Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": {},
+  "description": "Present when the call failed. Absent on success.",
+  "properties": {
+    "code": {
+      "description": "JSON-RPC error code for this failure.",
+      "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+      "minimum": -9007199254740991,
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "data": {
+      "additionalProperties": {},
+      "properties": {
+        "reason": {
+          "description": "Machine-readable failure mode. Declared by this tool: `missing_expected`: operation is \"compare\" but no expected digest was supplied. `expected_length_mismatch`: The expected digest length does not match the algorithm, so compare would always fail. `invalid_input_encoding`: value is not valid for the declared inputEncoding (e.g. non-hex characters with inputEncoding \"hex\"). Other values are possible when a failure originates below the handler.",
+          "examples": [
+            "missing_expected",
+            "expected_length_mismatch",
+            "invalid_input_encoding"
+          ],
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "recovery": {
+          "additionalProperties": {},
+          "description": "Actionable next step for the caller.",
+          "properties": {
+            "hint": {
+              "type": "string"
+            }
+          },
+          "required": [
+            "hint"
+          ],
+          "type": "object"
+        },
+        "retryable": {
+          "description": "Whether retrying may succeed.",
+          "type": "boolean"
+        }
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "message": {
+      "description": "Human-readable description of what went wrong.",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "code",
+    "message"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

removedOutput schema / required

Removed value: -[
-  "algorithm",
-  "operation"
-]

First observedAug 18, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnly and idempotent, so the description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond that: the constant-time comparison (timing-safe), the security implications of different algorithms, and how inputEncoding handles binary data without decode round-trips. It also explains the output format (lowercase-hex) and the expected format for comparison. No contradiction with annotations exists.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single paragraph but well-structured: it opens with the overall purpose, then covers operation, algorithm, encoding, and ends with a canonical use case. Every sentence adds functional value and there is no filler. Slightly longer than necessary, but each clause earns its place; front-loading the purpose is effective.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present (not shown but declared), the description needn't detail return values. It covers all parameters, explains the two operation modes, provides algorithm security guidance, clarifies input encoding semantics, and gives a concrete use case. Nothing an agent needs to call this tool correctly — including subtle security caveats — is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema covers all 5 parameters at 100% with clear per-parameter descriptions. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining why inputEncoding is useful (no decode round-trip for binary), and by framing the operation parameter as a choice between generating and constant-time comparing. It also reinforces algorithm security profiles, which is helpful context beyond the enum values.

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 states the tool generates a cryptographic digest or verifies a value against an expected digest — a specific verb and resource. It clearly differentiates itself from encoding/generation tools by focusing on hashing and verification, and even mentions a canonical use case (checksum matching). This unambiguously tells an agent what the tool accomplishes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives strong context: explains the two operations (generate vs compare), highlights the timing-safe compare, and explicitly warns that md5/sha1 must not be used for security purposes. Though it does not name alternative tools like toolkit_encode_value, it provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance within the tool itself, which is sufficient for a standalone utility.

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

All toolkit-mcp-server tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct function: encoding, ID generation, QR generation, IP geolocation, and hashing. No two tools could plausibly be selected for the same task, and the descriptions reinforce these boundaries.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow the exact toolkit_<verb>_<noun> snake_case pattern with action verbs (encode, generate, geolocate, hash). There are no mixed conventions or vague names.

Tool Count5/5

Five tools is within the ideal 3-15 range and each tool carries substantial functionality through multiple formats, algorithms, or operations. No tool feels like filler, and the set avoids bloat.

Completeness4/5

Each individual tool is internally comprehensive—encode covers four encodings in both directions, generate_id covers common ID formats, and hash covers generate/compare. As a general 'toolkit' it omits some common utility categories, but there are no dead ends or missing operations within the five advertised functions.

toolkit-mcp-server: hash value

Input Schema

Output Schema

Schema Changelog

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources