Skip to main content
Glama

pentest-mcp-server

by io.github.cyanheads

Pentest Generate Payloads

pentest_generate_payloads
Read-onlyIdempotent

Generate context-specific payload templates for authorized systems. Each template includes its vulnerability category, context rationale, WAF/IDS detection signature, mitigation, optional WAF research note, and optional encoded variant.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
countNoNumber of payload variants to return (1–20, default 5). More variants cover different bypass approaches for the same context.
categoryYesVulnerability category for payload generation.
encodingNoOptional encoding chain applied left to right to each returned template.
waf_profileNoWAF or filter in front of the authorized test target. When a specific WAF is named, bypass variants referencing known public research are included.none
injection_contextYesPrecise injection context. Critical for XSS: an HTML attribute payload differs from a JS string payload. Provide the most specific context for the best results.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
errorNoPresent when the call failed. Absent on success.
categoryNoRequested payload category.
payloadsNoPayload templates ordered by coverage breadth, each annotated with offense and defense context.
injection_contextNoRequested injection context.
authorized_use_reminderNoReminder that these templates are for authorized testing only.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and deterministic output. The description adds valuable detail about what each template includes (category, rationale, detection signature, mitigation, optional research note and encoded variant), which is beyond annotations and helps agents understand output structure.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the primary action and scope, then briefly enumerates output contents. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, enums, output schema present), the description provides enough context about the returned templates and ties to the 'context rationale' element. It does not explicitly mention parameters like count or encoding, but those are fully documented in the schema, and the output schema is present, so nothing critical is missing.

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 the description does not need to elaborate on parameters. It adds no parameter-specific details beyond the schema, and the baseline of 3 is appropriate when schema carries the full load.

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 verb ('Generate') and resource ('context-specific payload templates'), with a scope qualifier ('for authorized systems'). It is easily distinguished from siblings like pentest_analyze_response (analysis) or pentest_encode (encoding), so an agent knows exactly what this tool does without opening the schema.

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 implicitly frames usage as part of an authorized pentest workflow, but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as pentest_guide or pentest_map_techniques. The context is clear, yet exclusions or alternative routing are left to inference.

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
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: response analysis, payload encoding, payload generation, methodology guidance, ATT&CK group lookup, ATT&CK technique lookup, and technique mapping. There is no meaningful overlap or ambiguity between tool boundaries.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tools share the pentest_ prefix and most follow a verb_noun pattern such as analyze_response, generate_payloads, and lookup_technique. However, pentest_encode and pentest_guide are verb-only, creating a minor inconsistency in the naming convention.

Tool Count5/5

Seven tools is a well-scoped size for a pentest assistance server. Each tool covers a distinct capability without unnecessary duplication or bloat.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers the main pentest workflow areas: response analysis, payload generation/encoding, methodology guidance, and ATT&CK reference/mapping. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit reporting or active scanning tool, but the surface is coherent and usable for its apparent purpose.

Resources