Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
UnClick MCP Server

UnClick MCP Server

by malamutemayhem
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

hibp_check_account

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check whether an email address appears in known data breaches to assess account exposure and guide remediation.

Instructions

Check if an email account has been in a data breach.

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": {
      "email": "<email>"
    },
    "name": "hibp_check_account"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
emailYes
api_keyNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.1.5

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds nothing further: it doesn't say what a positive vs negative result looks like, whether the response lists breaches with metadata, how rate limits apply, or why an api_key parameter exists. For an open-world external API call with a credential parameter, this is a notable gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity is achieved by omitting rather than by discipline.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With no output schema, zero schema coverage, an unexplained api_key parameter, and no disclosure of return shape, rate limits, or authentication requirements, the description is not sufficient for an agent to invoke this confidently beyond the happy path.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries full burden. It explains the email implicitly, but the api_key parameter — a second parameter entirely undocumented in the schema — is given no mention or explanation in the description. Only partial compensation for the coverage gap.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('email account... in a data breach'), which is clearly distinct from sibling tools like hibp_check_password and hibp_all_breaches. It doesn't explicitly name those siblings, but the resource is unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to use this versus hibp_all_breaches (which lists all breaches) or hibp_check_password. No prerequisites, no mention of the required API key, no indication of whether the account must exist first.

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