Skip to main content
Glama

Password strength

password_strength
Read-onlyIdempotent

Estimate how guessable a password is with zxcvbn pattern matching (dictionary words, common passwords, keyboard walks, sequences, dates, l33t). Returns a 0-4 score, estimated guesses, entropy in bits, crack times for online and offline attacks, warnings, suggestions and NIST SP 800-63B-4 length checks. The password is not echoed back.

Returns: JSON { score 0-4, label, length, guesses, guesses_log10, entropy_bits, character_pool_entropy_bits, character_classes[], crack_times[{scenario, seconds, display}], warning, suggestions[], patterns[{pattern, start, end, description}], nist_sp800_63b{...} }. The password itself is never included. Example input: {"password":"Tr0ub4dor&3","user_inputs":["alice"]} On error, includes hint: password must be a string of at most 256 characters; user_inputs is an optional array of strings.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "password": "<password>"
    },
    "name": "password_strength"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
passwordYesThe password to analyse (up to 256 characters).
user_inputsNoOptional personal words (name, username, site name) that make the password easier to guess if it contains them.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/closed-world, and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the password is never echoed back or included in output, NIST SP 800-63B-4 length checks are performed, and errors return a specific hint. The privacy guarantee is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot express.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with the purpose and return contents, and the long return-shape enumeration earns its place because there is no output schema. Minor redundancy: the 'not echoed back' privacy point is made twice ('The password is not echoed back' and 'The password itself is never included').

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 no output schema, the description fully specifies the return object (score, guesses, entropy, crack times, patterns, NIST block) and states the error contract. Nothing an agent needs to invoke or interpret the result is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description's example input and error hint restate the 256-character limit and the optional user_inputs array rather than adding new semantics.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Estimate how guessable a password is') and names the underlying technique (zxcvbn pattern matching) plus the classes of patterns detected. This is unambiguously an analysis tool, cleanly distinct from the sibling password_generate, so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the description (analyse an existing password's guessability) and the example input clarifies the call shape, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no sibling is named as an alternative. An agent can infer usage but gets no routing rules or prerequisites.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources