Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
UnClick MCP Server

UnClick MCP Server

by malamutemayhem
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

hibp_all_breaches

Read-onlyIdempotent

Query Have I Been Pwned for all tracked data breaches, optionally filtered by domain, to assess breach exposure for a site or across the full dataset.

Instructions

Get all breaches tracked by Have I Been Pwned.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "hibp_all_breaches"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.1.5

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that: no indication of dataset size, whether results are paginated or cached, or whether the optional domain narrows results.

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?

One short sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and resource. It is efficient but so terse that efficiency shades into under-specification.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple read-only list tool whose annotations cover safety, the core intent is conveyed. The unexplained 'domain' filter is the notable omission, since an agent cannot confidently supply it or know the effect of omitting it.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 0% for the single 'domain' parameter, so the description carries the full burden and fails. It never says whether 'domain' filters breaches by the affected site's domain or by a user's email domain, which is a meaningful ambiguity in the HIBP context.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: retrieve all breaches tracked by Have I Been Pwned. The scope word 'all' helps distinguish it from a lookup of one account. However, it does not name the sibling tools (hibp_check_account, hibp_check_password) it needs to be disambiguated from.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no statement of when to use this listing versus hibp_check_account for a specific email or hibp_check_password for a password. The agent must infer the distinction from the names alone.

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