Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
aeza-mcp

aeza-mcp

by rdydygin
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

leakcheck_leack_check

Read-onlyIdempotent

Checks for exposed credentials or data leaks through the Aeza API, helping identify potential account or infrastructure exposure.

Instructions

Leakcheck leack check GET /leakcheck/aeza

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": "leakcheck_leack_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety and idempotency profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that - no indication of what data source is queried, whether external network calls or rate limits apply (relevant given openWorldHint), or how results are framed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is very short with no filler, but the space is spent restating the tool name plus an opaque route string rather than conveying usable information. Brevity here reflects under-specification more than 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 parameters and no output schema, the description is the only place an agent can learn what this endpoint returns or requires, and it supplies neither. For an open-world read tool the agent is left guessing at the resource being queried.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is no parameter meaning for the description to supply.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description only restates the tool name ('Leakcheck leack check', including a typo) and tacks on a raw endpoint path 'GET /leakcheck/aeza'. It never says what a 'leak check' actually examines (credentials? domains? breach data?) or what the 'aeza' segment means, so an agent cannot distinguish it from siblings like domains_check_domain_available beyond the vague word 'leak'.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. At most, the word 'leakcheck' implies this is for checking leaked/exposed data, which is inferred rather than stated.

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