Skip to main content
Glama

Hibp

by io.github.pipeworx-io
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Get Breach

get_breach
Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch a single breach by name (the "Name" field from list_breaches, e.g., "Adobe", "LinkedIn"). Returns full breach metadata.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesBreach name (case-sensitive)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesUnique breach name
titleYesHuman-readable breach title
domainYesPrimary domain affected
logo_pathYesPath to breach logo image
pwn_countYesNumber of affected accounts
added_dateYesDate added to HIBP
is_malwareYesWhether malware was involved
is_retiredYesWhether breach is retired
breach_dateYesDate breach occurred
descriptionYesDetailed breach description
is_verifiedYesWhether breach is verified
data_classesYesTypes of data exposed
is_sensitiveYesWhether breach is sensitive
is_spam_listYesWhether this is a spam list
is_fabricatedYesWhether breach is fabricated
modified_dateYesLast modification date

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "name": "Adobe"
+  },
+  {
+    "name": "LinkedIn"
+  }
+]
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "added_date": {
+      "description": "Date added to HIBP",
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "breach_date": {
+      "description": "Date breach occurred",
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "data_classes": {
+      "description": "Types of data exposed",
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "description": {
+      "description": "Detailed breach description",
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "domain": {
+      "description": "Primary domain affected",
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "is_fabricated": {
+      "description": "Whether breach is fabricated",
+      "type": [
+        "boolean",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "is_malware": {
+      "description": "Whether malware was involved",
+      "type": [
+        "boolean",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "is_retired": {
+      "description": "Whether breach is retired",
+      "type": [
+        "boolean",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "is_sensitive": {
+      "description": "Whether breach is sensitive",
+      "type": [
+        "boolean",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "is_spam_list": {
+      "description": "Whether this is a spam list",
+      "type": [
+        "boolean",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "is_verified": {
+      "description": "Whether breach is verified",
+      "type": [
+        "boolean",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "logo_path": {
+      "description": "Path to breach logo image",
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "modified_date": {
+      "description": "Last modification date",
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "name": {
+      "description": "Unique breach name",
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "pwn_count": {
+      "description": "Number of affected accounts",
+      "type": [
+        "number",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "title": {
+      "description": "Human-readable breach title",
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "name",
+    "title",
+    "domain",
+    "breach_date",
+    "added_date",
+    "modified_date",
+    "pwn_count",
+    "description",
+    "data_classes",
+    "is_verified",
+    "is_fabricated",
+    "is_sensitive",
+    "is_retired",
+    "is_spam_list",
+    "is_malware",
+    "logo_path"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. Description adds case-sensitive constraint but doesn't detail return behavior beyond 'full breach metadata'. No contradictions.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource, no filler. Every word earns its place.

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 one parameter and an output schema, the description explains exactly what input is needed (breach name from list_breaches) and what is returned (full metadata). Complete for a simple fetch tool.

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?

Schema covers 100% of parameters and describes 'name' as case-sensitive. Description reinforces with examples (e.g., 'Adobe', 'LinkedIn'), adding value by linking to list_breaches output.

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?

Clearly states 'Fetch a single breach by name', identifies the resource (single breach), and distinguishes from sibling tool list_breaches by referencing the 'Name' field from that tool.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Provides clear context: use this when you have a specific breach name from list_breaches. Doesn't explicitly mention when not to use, but the instruction is sufficient for an agent.

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

All Hibp 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