Skip to main content
Glama

Breach402 Owner Protection

by com.bmcxiv
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Prepare Paid Breach Check

prepare_paid_breach_check
Idempotent

Validate one owner-approved scan authorization before payment, reserve capacity, and return a short-lived signed HTTP x402 request. The price is $1 USDC on Solana.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
scan_tokenYesOne-time token returned after owner verification.
idempotency_keyYes8-128 character unique key generated by the agent.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlNoProtected endpoint that returns the x402 payment requirement.
bodyNoExact JSON body for the protected request.
assetNoSettlement asset.
checkNoExisting paid-check receipt when already paid.
priceNoUSDC price for the owner-approved scan.
methodNoHTTP method for the protected request.
headersNoRequired HTTP headers, including the idempotency key.
networkNoSolana network used for settlement.
expires_atNoTime when the prepared payment request expires.
instructionNoPayment and retry instructions for the customer agent.
already_paidNoWhether this idempotent request already produced a paid check.
payment_ticketNoPrivate signed capability for submitting the protected x402 request.
payment_ticket_idNoIdentifier for the reserved payment attempt.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "description": "Short-lived x402 payment request, or an existing paid check when safely replayed.",
+  "properties": {
+    "already_paid": {
+      "description": "Whether this idempotent request already produced a paid check.",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "asset": {
+      "description": "Settlement asset.",
+      "enum": [
+        "USDC"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "body": {
+      "additionalProperties": true,
+      "description": "Exact JSON body for the protected request.",
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "check": {
+      "additionalProperties": true,
+      "description": "Existing paid-check receipt when already paid.",
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "expires_at": {
+      "description": "Time when the prepared payment request expires.",
+      "format": "date-time",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "headers": {
+      "additionalProperties": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "description": "Required HTTP headers, including the idempotency key.",
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "instruction": {
+      "description": "Payment and retry instructions for the customer agent.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "method": {
+      "description": "HTTP method for the protected request.",
+      "enum": [
+        "POST"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "network": {
+      "description": "Solana network used for settlement.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "payment_ticket": {
+      "description": "Private signed capability for submitting the protected x402 request.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "payment_ticket_id": {
+      "description": "Identifier for the reserved payment attempt.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "price": {
+      "description": "USDC price for the owner-approved scan.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "url": {
+      "description": "Protected endpoint that returns the x402 payment requirement.",
+      "format": "uri",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses that the returned request is short-lived and signed (x402), and that payment is required (price, blockchain). Annotations already indicate idempotency and non-destructiveness; the description adds valuable behavioral context about the request and payment, without contradicting annotations.

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 extremely concise—two sentences—and every word adds value. It front-loads the main action and includes critical details (price, request type) without unnecessary verbiage.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (payment, short-lived request) and the presence of an output schema (which covers return values), the description is sufficiently complete. It covers purpose, parameters, pricing, and the nature of the returned request, leaving no obvious gaps for an agent to misinterpret.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description repeats the schema definitions for scan_token and idempotency_key but does not add new meaning or format details beyond what is already in the schema. Therefore, it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 specific actions: validates owner-approved authorization, reserves capacity, and returns a signed HTTP x402 request. It also mentions payment details ($1 USDC on Solana). This distinguishes it from sibling tools, which focus on email verification and breach report retrieval.

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 this tool is used after obtaining a scan_token from owner verification, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like get_breach_report or create_owner_email_verification. No exclusions or use cases are provided, so guidance is minimal.

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 toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources