Skip to main content
Glama

SiteCheck Web Intel

Lists the data breaches HaveIBeenPwned has recorded

security_hibp_breach_check
Read-only

Lists the data breaches HaveIBeenPwned has recorded for a domain (breach name, breach date, accounts affected, data types exposed, verified flag). It is the public breach catalogue, not a check of individual email addresses (that needs a paid key and is not offered here). Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

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": {
      "domain": "<domain>"
    },
    "name": "security_hibp_breach_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYesDomain name such as adobe.com (required)

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainNo
sourceNo
breachesNo
checkedAtNo
breachCountNo
catalogueSizeNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

It discloses significant behavioral and operational details not covered by annotations, specifically the cost structure ($0.002 in USDC) and the payment mechanism (x402), which is critical for execution planning.

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 highly efficient, addressing the function, scope, limitations, and operational costs in a single, well-structured paragraph with no wasted words.

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 its complexity (security tool with operational constraints), the definition is highly complete. It covers what data is returned, what the scope limits are, and the financial cost per call.

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

Parameters4/5

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

While schema coverage is 100%, the description adds essential semantic meaning by listing the specific data fields returned (breach name, date, accounts affected, etc.). This helps the agent anticipate and process the structured output correctly.

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 purpose (listing breaches), the source (HaveIBeenPwned), and the target (a domain). This specific phrasing helps differentiate it from general web search tools or other security checks.

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?

It provides explicit usage constraints by clarifying what the tool is (a public catalogue) and what it is not (a check of individual email addresses requiring a paid key). This is vital guidance for the AI agent.

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