Developer Tools

Choose based on what you're shipping. OpenAPI to MCP generates a complete, downloadable Model Context Protocol server project (TypeScript or Python) with Cursor and Claude Desktop config snippets, so you get a running MCP process that exposes your API's operations as agent tools out of the box. OpenAPI to Tool Schemas skips the server entirely and outputs just the schema definitions themselves, Zod validators, JSON Schema, OpenAI function-calling tools, or Anthropic input_schema tools, for when you already have your own agent runtime or tool-calling loop and only need correctly typed tool definitions to drop in. If you're prototyping an MCP server from scratch, start with OpenAPI to MCP; if you're wiring an existing agent framework, OpenAPI to Tool Schemas is the faster, lighter path.

They solve different problems. robots.txt is an access-control file: it tells crawlers, including AI crawlers like GPTBot, ClaudeBot, and PerplexityBot, which URLs they may or may not fetch, using Allow and Disallow rules that bots are expected to respect. llms.txt is not about access at all; it's an informational index, a curated Markdown map of your site's most useful pages, meant to help an AI agent understand what your site offers and where to find deeper context, similar in spirit to a sitemap written for language models instead of search engines. In practice you want both: robots.txt to explicitly allow the AI crawlers you want indexing you, and llms.txt to hand agents a shortcut past your full site structure. Use robots.txt Generator for the first and llms.txt Generator for the second.

No. Every tool in the Developer Tools hub, OpenAPI parsing and MCP codegen, JSON-to-schema inference, the hash, UUID, Base64, and URL encoders, prompt and rules linting, Cursor rules generation, and robots.txt generation, runs entirely as JavaScript inside your browser tab. Specs, prompts, config files, and text you paste in are parsed and transformed locally; nothing is sent to Instant Tools servers or any third-party API for these tools. That also means they keep working offline once the page has loaded, and there's no file-size or rate limit imposed by a backend, since there is no backend in the request path for anything in this hub, only the browser you're already using.

For integrity checks today, that is, verifying a downloaded file matches what the publisher intended, use SHA-256 or SHA-512; both are collision-resistant with current computing power and are the default choice in most modern toolchains, package managers, and checksums you'll see published alongside releases. MD5 and SHA-1 are still fine for low-stakes, non-security uses like deduplicating files, generating a quick cache key, or spotting accidental corruption, since they're fast and short, but both have known collision attacks and should never be used for passwords, digital signatures, or anything where an adversary might deliberately try to produce a matching hash. Hash Generator computes all five (MD5, SHA-1, SHA-256, SHA-384, SHA-512) at once from text or a file, so you can compare and pick per situation.