Skip to main content
Glama

pentest-mcp-server

by io.github.cyanheads
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Pentest Analyze Response

pentest_analyze_response
Read-onlyIdempotent

Analyze an HTTP response from authorized probing for information leakage, fingerprinting signals, and related exposure. Structured findings cover version disclosures, stack traces, debug headers, internal paths, authentication patterns, CORS configuration, detection signals, remediation, and associated methodology vectors.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
contextNoFreeform context about the authorized test target — e.g., "login endpoint", "GraphQL API", "file upload handler". Narrows the pattern matching to relevant categories. Max 2,000 characters.
status_codeNoHTTP status code (100–599). Helps classify the response type.
response_bodyNoRaw HTML, JSON, XML, or error response body text. Maximum 10,000 characters.
response_headersNoRaw HTTP response headers, optionally including the status line. Maximum 20,000 characters.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
errorNoPresent when the call failed. Absent on success.
summaryNoOne-paragraph summary of findings and associated follow-up actions.
findingsNoStructured findings ordered by severity descending (high first).
fingerprintsNoDetected server, framework, language, database, cloud, and other technology signals.
nextToolSuggestionsNoSuggested tools derived from detected fingerprints and findings.
authorized_use_reminderNoReminder that response analysis is for authorized testing only. Rendered first.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed16 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • changedInput schema / properties / response_body / description
      Previous value: -"Response body text. Paste raw HTML, JSON, XML, or error text. Truncate to the first 10,000 characters for very large responses — the first portion carries most leakage signals."New value: +"Raw HTML, JSON, XML, or error response body text. Maximum 10,000 characters."
    • changedInput schema / properties / response_headers / description
      Previous value: -"Raw HTTP response headers (paste from Burp, curl -v, or similar). Include the status line if available. Max 20,000 characters."New value: +"Raw HTTP response headers, optionally including the status line. Maximum 20,000 characters."
    • changedOutput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
    • addedOutput schema / anyOf
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "not": {
+      "required": [
+        "error"
+      ]
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "authorized_use_reminder",
+      "findings",
+      "fingerprints",
+      "summary",
+      "nextToolSuggestions"
+    ]
+  },
+  {
+    "required": [
+      "error"
+    ]
+  }
+]
    • addedOutput schema / properties / error
      Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": {},
+  "description": "Present when the call failed. Absent on success.",
+  "properties": {
+    "code": {
+      "description": "JSON-RPC error code for this failure.",
+      "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+      "minimum": -9007199254740991,
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "data": {
+      "additionalProperties": {},
+      "properties": {
+        "reason": {
+          "description": "Machine-readable failure mode. Declared by this tool: `no_input`: Neither response_headers nor response_body was provided. Other values are possible when a failure originates below the handler.",
+          "examples": [
+            "no_input"
+          ],
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "recovery": {
+          "additionalProperties": {},
+          "description": "Actionable next step for the caller.",
+          "properties": {
+            "hint": {
+              "type": "string"
+            }
+          },
+          "required": [
+            "hint"
+          ],
+          "type": "object"
+        },
+        "retryable": {
+          "description": "Whether retrying may succeed.",
+          "type": "boolean"
+        }
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "message": {
+      "description": "Human-readable description of what went wrong.",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "code",
+    "message"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
    • changedOutput schema / properties / findings / items / properties / detection / description
      Previous value: -"How a defender or SIEM would detect exploitation of this finding."New value: +"Observable signals associated with exploitation of this finding."
    • changedOutput schema / properties / fingerprints / description
      Previous value: -"Technology fingerprinting summary for use in target_context when calling pentest_guide or pentest_map_techniques."New value: +"Detected server, framework, language, database, cloud, and other technology signals."
    • changedOutput schema / properties / nextToolSuggestions / description
      Previous value: -"Suggested next tool calls — typically pentest_guide with fingerprint-populated stack, or pentest_generate_payloads for directly exploitable findings."New value: +"Suggested tools derived from detected fingerprints and findings."
    • changedOutput schema / properties / nextToolSuggestions / items / description
      Previous value: -"A suggested follow-up tool call with pre-filled arguments."New value: +"A suggested tool with arguments derived from the analysis."
    • changedOutput schema / properties / nextToolSuggestions / items / properties / args / description
      Previous value: -"Pre-filled arguments derived from detected fingerprints and findings. Pass directly to the suggested tool."New value: +"Arguments derived from detected fingerprints and findings."
    • changedOutput schema / properties / nextToolSuggestions / items / properties / reason / description
      Previous value: -"Why this tool is the logical next step given the analysis findings."New value: +"Relationship between the analysis findings and the suggested tool."
    • changedOutput schema / properties / nextToolSuggestions / items / properties / toolName / description
      Previous value: -"Tool name to call next (e.g., \"pentest_guide\")."New value: +"Suggested tool name (e.g., \"pentest_guide\")."
    • changedOutput schema / properties / summary / description
      Previous value: -"One-paragraph summary of findings and recommended next steps for the authorized tester."New value: +"One-paragraph summary of findings and associated follow-up actions."
    • removedOutput schema / required
      Removed value: -[
-  "authorized_use_reminder",
-  "findings",
-  "fingerprints",
-  "summary",
-  "nextToolSuggestions"
-]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe, non-mutating operation. The description adds value by disclosing what the tool produces: structured findings covering specific categories (version disclosures, stack traces, debug headers, internal paths, authentication patterns, CORS configuration, detection signals, remediation, and methodology vectors). This goes beyond the annotations by describing the output structure and scope. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is a single, dense paragraph that front-loads the core purpose ('Analyze an HTTP response from authorized probing') and then lists the finding categories. It's efficient with no filler words. The list of categories is somewhat long but each item adds value by clarifying the tool's scope. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) but is acceptable as prose.

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?

The tool has an output schema (not shown in detail but indicated by 'Has output schema: true'), which likely describes the structured findings. The description covers the input parameters (via schema) and the output categories. The description mentions 'remediation' and 'methodology vectors' which are important for a pentest tool. Given the complexity of a security analysis tool, the description is reasonably complete. It could mention that the tool is read-only (though annotations cover that) or provide more detail on how the analysis works, but the current level is adequate.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (context, status_code, response_body, response_headers) are already well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides. The description mentions 'context' narrows pattern matching, which aligns with the schema's description, but doesn't add new information. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: analyzing HTTP responses from authorized probing for information leakage, fingerprinting signals, and related exposure. It lists specific categories of findings (version disclosures, stack traces, debug headers, etc.), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like pentest_generate_payloads or pentest_map_techniques. The verb 'analyze' and resource 'HTTP response' are specific and unambiguous.

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 usage context: it's for analyzing responses from authorized probing, which suggests it should be used after sending requests. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling tools are clearly different in function (encoding, payload generation, lookup, mapping). The 'authorized probing' qualifier provides important usage context. However, it doesn't explicitly say 'use this when you have a response to analyze' or contrast with alternatives.

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

All pentest-mcp-server toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources