shieldapi.check_email
Read-onlyIdempotent
Check if an email address has been exposed in known data breaches via HIBP.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | Email address to check |
ShieldAPI MCP
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable context about the data source (HIBP) and the scope ('known data breaches'), which goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action and resource efficiently with no redundant words or filler.
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?
For a simple one-parameter read-only check tool with robust annotations, this description sufficiently covers purpose, data source, and implied boolean result. No output schema is needed, and the description is complete for the tool's complexity.
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?
The input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter with a clear description ('Email address to check'). The tool description adds no further parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 uses the specific verb 'check' with the resource 'email address' and provides context ('exposed in known data breaches via HIBP'), clearly distinguishing this tool from sibling tools that check domains, IPs, or passwords.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for email breach checking, and sibling tool names make alternatives obvious (e.g., check_domain for domains). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives by name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose targeting specific security checks: domain, email, IP, password, password range, prompt injection, URL, full scan, and skill scanning. There is no overlap in functionality, making it easy for an agent to select the correct tool based on the input type and desired check.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with the prefix 'shieldapi.check_' or 'shieldapi.scan_' (e.g., check_domain, check_email, scan_skill). The naming is uniform and predictable, using snake_case throughout without any deviations or mixed conventions.
Tool Count5/5
With 9 tools, the server is well-scoped for a security API, covering a broad range of checks (e.g., reputation, breach detection, threat analysis) without being overwhelming. Each tool serves a unique and necessary function, making the count appropriate for the domain.
Completeness4/5
The tool set provides comprehensive coverage for security checks, including domain, email, IP, password, URL, and specialized scans for prompts and AI skills. A minor gap is the lack of update or delete operations, but this is reasonable for a read-only security assessment API, and agents can work around this by using the appropriate check tools as needed.