Breach402 Owner Protection

Start Owner Email Verification

create_owner_email_verification

Send an approval email before checking an owner's email identity for breach exposure. Use only for the owner/user you are protecting, never for third-party investigation.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`email`	Yes	The owner-controlled email address to verify.
`agent_wallet`	No	Optional agent-supplied Solana address displayed as an unverified claim. It is not proof of wallet control.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`email`	Yes	Masked owner email address.
`status`	Yes	Current enrollment state.
`next_step`	Yes	Safe next action for the requesting agent.
`poll_token`	Yes	Private bearer capability for polling or revoking this enrollment.
`status_url`	Yes	HTTP endpoint for enrollment status.
`enrollment_id`	Yes	Unique identifier for this verification enrollment.
`verification_methods`	Yes	Owner approval methods offered.
`verification_expires_at`	Yes	Time when owner approval expires.

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Description adds context about sending an email and privacy constraints. Annotations already convey open-world and non-read-only nature. No contradictions.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences, no redundancy, front-loaded with purpose.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Adequate for a trigger tool; explains the why and when. Does not detail output or side effects, but output schema exists.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema covers 100% of parameter descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail.

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?

Clearly states the action (send approval email) and the context (pre-check for breach exposure), and distinguishes from siblings by specifying owner-only usage.

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?

Explicitly states use only for the owner being protected, not for third parties. Does not explicitly mention alternatives but context is clear.

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

All Breach402 Owner Protection 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.

Each tool has a distinct role in the workflow: decision aid, verification lifecycle, payment preparation, report retrieval, and demo. No two tools appear to perform the same action, and the descriptions clearly differentiate free vs. paid, synthetic vs. real, and pending vs. verified states.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names use a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_owner_email_verification, get_breach_report, revoke_owner_email_authorization). The verbs (assess, create, get, prepare, preview, revoke, verify) are predictable and match the action taken.

Tool Count5/5

8 tools is well within the ideal 3-15 range. The count is proportional to the complexity of the domain, covering the full owner-protection workflow without excessive granularity or missing essential phases.

Completeness4/5

The toolset covers the complete lifecycle from need assessment through email verification, paid check preparation, and report retrieval, plus revoke and preview. A minor gap is the absence of a tool to query the status of an in-progress paid scan, which could leave agents polling indefinitely or assuming the report is ready when it is not.

Resources

Need Help?