Skip to main content
Glama
alberthild

ShieldAPI MCP

shieldapi.check_password

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check SHA-1 password hashes against known data breaches via Have I Been Pwned to identify compromised credentials.

Instructions

Check if a password hash (SHA-1) has been exposed in known data breaches via HIBP.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hashYesSHA-1 hash of the password (40 hex chars)

Implementation Reference

  • The tool 'shieldapi.check_password' is registered dynamically within this loop, which delegates the execution to the 'callShieldApi' function using the endpoint definition.
    for (const [name, def] of Object.entries(TOOLS)) {
      server.tool(
        name,
        def.description,
        { [def.param]: z.string().describe(def.paramDesc) },
        { ...readOnlyAnnotations, title: TOOL_TITLES[name] || name },
        async (params) => formatResult(await callShieldApi(def.endpoint, params as Record<string, string>))
      );
  • This is the actual handler logic that performs the network request to the ShieldAPI endpoint.
    async function callShieldApi(endpoint: string, params: Record<string, string>): Promise<unknown> {
      const url = new URL(`${SHIELDAPI_URL}/api/${endpoint}`);
      for (const [key, value] of Object.entries(params)) {
        url.searchParams.set(key, value);
      }
      if (demoMode) {
        url.searchParams.set('demo', 'true');
      }
    
      const response = await paymentFetch(url.toString());
      if (!response.ok) {
        const body = await response.text();
        throw new Error(`ShieldAPI ${endpoint} failed (${response.status}): ${body.substring(0, 200)}`);
      }
      return response.json();
    }
  • Definition of the 'shieldapi.check_password' tool parameters and endpoint.
    'shieldapi.check_password': {
      description: 'Check if a password hash (SHA-1) has been exposed in known data breaches via HIBP.',
      param: 'hash',
      paramDesc: 'SHA-1 hash of the password (40 hex chars)',
      endpoint: 'check-password',
    },
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations comprehensively cover safety properties (readOnly, destructive, idempotent, openWorld). The description adds valuable context about HIBP (Have I Been Pwned) and breach checking, but omits behavioral details like the k-anonymity model, rate limits, or response format (boolean vs. count).

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 of 14 words that is perfectly front-loaded with the action ('Check') and packs essential qualifiers (SHA-1, HIBP, data breaches) without redundancy. Every word contributes necessary specificity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the single parameter, comprehensive annotations covering all behavioral hints, and schema coverage, the description is complete for tool selection. It could improve by describing the return value semantics (exposed vs. not exposed) given the lack of output schema.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage ('SHA-1 hash of the password (40 hex chars)'), the structured schema fully documents the parameter. The description provides equivalent information without adding syntax details or examples, meeting the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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 provides a specific verb ('Check'), identifies the resource ('password hash'), specifies the format ('SHA-1'), and states the data source ('via HIBP'/known data breaches), clearly distinguishing it from generic validation tools.

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?

The mention of 'SHA-1' and 'HIBP' implies the tool requires pre-hashed passwords and queries an external breach database, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus the sibling 'check_password_range' tool or prerequisites like hash generation.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/alberthild/shield-api-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server