Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
BreachSpider MCP server

BreachSpider MCP server

Official
by Citedrelevance
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

check_changes

Read-onlyIdempotent

Detect changed devices by re-submitting vendor, product, version, and stored result_hash; returns new hashes so only changed devices require a fresh correlate_devices call.

Instructions

Cheap repeat check. For devices you already checked with correlate_devices, send the same vendor, product and version plus the result_hash you kept. Returns which devices changed and their new hash; only changed devices need a fresh correlate_devices call. Use this for repeat checks. Never send host names, IP or MAC addresses, user names or site names.

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": {
      "assets": "<assets>"
    },
    "name": "check_changes"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
assetsYesDevices with the result_hash from an earlier correlate_devices call.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it is a cheap incremental check, it returns changed devices plus their new hash, and it imposes a strict input-privacy rule (no host names, IPs, MACs, user or site names).

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?

Short and front-loaded, with the identity of the tool and the workflow constraint stated first and the privacy warning last. 'Use this for repeat checks' lightly restates the opening phrase, a minor redundancy rather than bloat.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries return-value duty and does so: it explains that changed devices and their new hash come back. Combined with the input-privacy rule and the follow-up guidance, nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description still earns credit by explaining the workflow contract — reuse the same vendor/product/version plus the retained result_hash from correlate_devices — and by adding a privacy constraint that the schema only partially mirrors ('Never a host name or address').

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+resource framing ('Cheap repeat check') and immediately scopes it to devices previously processed by correlate_devices. An agent can distinguish it from correlate_devices without opening either schema, since the repeat-check role is stated outright.

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 gives explicit when-to-use ('Use this for repeat checks') and routes the follow-up work precisely: 'only changed devices need a fresh correlate_devices call.' The sibling relationship and the condition that selects each tool are both spelled out.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools