Breach402 Owner Protection

Check Owner Verification Status

get_owner_email_verification_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Poll an email-verification request. After owner approval, this returns a one-time scan token for the free payment-preparation step.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`poll_token`	Yes	Private polling capability returned with the enrollment.
`enrollment_id`	Yes	Enrollment identifier returned when verification was started.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`email`	Yes	Masked owner email address.
`status`	Yes	Current enrollment state.
`next_step`	No	Safe next action for the requesting agent.
`scan_token`	No	Private one-time scan authorization, present only after owner approval.
`enrollment_id`	Yes	Verification enrollment identifier.
`verification_expires_at`	No	Time when owner approval expires.

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds context: it is a polling operation that returns a one-time token only after owner approval, and it serves a specific follow-up step. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the verb 'poll' and the resource, and every word adds value. No unnecessary information.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, annotations, and full parameter coverage, the description is nearly complete. It explains the token is one-time and its purpose. It could mention polling behavior (e.g., retry if not ready) but overall it's sufficient.

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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The tool description does not add new information about the parameters beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool polls an email-verification request and returns a one-time scan token. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_owner_email_verification (creation) and verify_owner_email_code (final verification) by focusing on polling for status after approval.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage after owner approval and for the payment-preparation step, but does not explicitly state when to use vs. alternatives (e.g., get_breach_report, prepare_paid_breach_check). No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

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?