Skip to main content
Glama

ContrastAPI

by com.contrastcyber

Password Check

password_check
Read-onlyIdempotent

Check if SHA-1 hash appears in Have I Been Pwned (HIBP) breach dataset using k-anonymity (5-char prefix only, full hash never leaves tool). Use for password breach audits; read-only, no data stored. Companion OSINT investigation tools: hash_lookup (file-hash malware family lookup, different namespace), email_disposable (throwaway-mail signal on associated accounts), username_lookup (social-platform exposure on associated handles). Free: 30/hr, Pro: 500/hr. Returns {found, count}.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sha1_hashYesFull SHA-1 hash of the password as 40 lowercase hexadecimal characters (e.g. '5baa61e4c9b93f3f0682250b6cf8331b7ee68fd8' for 'password')

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive, but the description adds unique behavioral context: k-anonymity via 5-char prefix (full hash never leaves tool), no data stored, and rate limits. This informs privacy and quota implications beyond the structured hints.

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?

Three concise sentences pack purpose, usage, companion tools, rate limits, and return format with zero redundancy. Front-loaded with the core operation, making it skimmable.

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 a single parameter, full schema description, output schema present, and rich annotations, the description is complete for an agent: it explains privacy, quotas, sibling differentiation, and expected return shape. No gaps for this tool's complexity.

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 has 100% coverage with a fully descriptive sha1_hash parameter (format, example). The description reinforces the prefix-only behavior but doesn't add new syntax or edge-case semantics; per rubric, baseline 3 since schema covers 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 opens with a specific verb-object pair ('Check if SHA-1 hash appears in HIBP breach dataset') and immediately distinguishes the namespace from sibling 'hash_lookup' by noting different namespace. It clearly states the tool's scope (password breach audits) and uses the HIBP dataset, setting it apart from OSINT tools.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly states when to use ('password breach audits') and provides companion tool guidance: hash_lookup for file-hash malware family, email_disposable for throwaway-mail signals, username_lookup for social-platform exposure. Also includes rate limits (30/hr free, 500/hr Pro) which help the agent decide if the tool is appropriate.

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

All ContrastAPI toolsInspect
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
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, with differences between lookup/search/scan/audit for each domain. However, some overlap exists (e.g., email_mx vs email_security_posture, scan_headers vs contrast_scan) which could cause occasional confusion. Overall, boundaries are well-defined.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., cve_lookup, check_headers, bulk_cve_lookup) with all lowercase underscores. Variations like kev_detail or ssl_check are minor and still predictable. No chaotic mixing of conventions.

Tool Count4/5

54 tools is high but justified by the broad cybersecurity scope (CVE, ATLAS, D3FEND, Sigma, domain, email, IOC, scanning). Some redundancy exists (e.g., three email-related tools), but the count is not excessive given the API's comprehensive feature set.

Completeness5/5

The tool set thoroughly covers the threat intelligence and domain investigation lifecycle: CVE/KEV/exploit/CWE, ATLAS/D3FEND/Sigma, DNS/WHOIS/SSL/subdomains, email security, IOC enrichment, and active scanning. No significant gaps are apparent for the stated cybersecurity purpose.

Resources