Skip to main content
Glama

pentest-mcp-server

by io.github.cyanheads
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Pentest Guide

pentest_guide
Read-onlyIdempotent

Return an authorized-testing methodology for a selected vector and optional target context. The playbook covers reconnaissance, enumeration, exploitation, and post-exploitation phases with objectives, techniques, detection signals, mitigations, common pitfalls, references, and context-derived tool suggestions across 15 vectors.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
phaseNoMethodology phase selector. "all" returns the complete playbook; a named phase returns only that phase.all
vectorYesAttack vector to retrieve methodology for. Each vector has its own methodology branch covering recon through exploitation. Authorized testing only.
target_contextNoOptional target profile for authorized engagement. Providing this narrows the playbook to what is most relevant for the specific environment.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
errorNoPresent when the call failed. Absent on success.
phasesNoOrdered methodology phases. Contains only the requested phase when phase input is not "all".
vectorNoThe requested attack vector.
owasp_referencesNoRelevant OWASP Testing Guide test case IDs (e.g., "WSTG-INPV-01").
nextToolSuggestionsNoSuggested tools and arguments derived from the playbook.
attack_technique_idsNoRelevant ATT&CK technique IDs for cross-referencing with pentest_lookup_technique.
authorized_use_reminderNoReminder that this methodology applies to authorized testing only. Included in every response.

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 / phase / description
      Previous value: -"Restrict output to a specific phase. Use \"all\" for a complete playbook. Use a specific phase when working through a step-by-step flow."New value: +"Methodology phase selector. \"all\" returns the complete playbook; a named phase returns only that phase."
    • 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": [
+      "vector",
+      "authorized_use_reminder",
+      "phases",
+      "owasp_references",
+      "attack_technique_ids",
+      "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.",
+          "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 / nextToolSuggestions / description
      Previous value: -"Suggested follow-up tool calls with arguments pre-populated from the playbook findings."New value: +"Suggested tools and arguments derived from the playbook."
    • changedOutput schema / properties / nextToolSuggestions / items / description
      Previous value: -"A follow-up tool call with pre-filled arguments derived from the playbook."New value: +"A suggested tool with arguments derived from the playbook."
    • changedOutput schema / properties / nextToolSuggestions / items / properties / args / description
      Previous value: -"Pre-filled arguments from the methodology context. Pass directly to the tool."New value: +"Arguments derived from the methodology context."
    • changedOutput schema / properties / nextToolSuggestions / items / properties / reason / description
      Previous value: -"Why this tool is the logical next step."New value: +"Relationship between the playbook and the suggested tool."
    • changedOutput schema / properties / nextToolSuggestions / items / properties / toolName / description
      Previous value: -"Tool name to call next (e.g., \"pentest_generate_payloads\")."New value: +"Suggested tool name (e.g., \"pentest_generate_payloads\")."
    • changedOutput schema / properties / phases / items / properties / objectives / description
      Previous value: -"What the tester is trying to discover or accomplish in this phase."New value: +"Discovery or execution objectives for this phase."
    • changedOutput schema / properties / phases / items / properties / techniques / items / properties / detection / description
      Previous value: -"How defenders detect this technique (log sources, signatures, anomalies)."New value: +"Observable logs, signatures, and anomalies for this technique."
    • changedOutput schema / properties / phases / items / properties / techniques / items / properties / mitigation / description
      Previous value: -"How the target system should be configured to prevent or reduce impact."New value: +"Configuration or control that prevents or reduces impact."
    • changedOutput schema / properties / phases / items / properties / tools_commonly_used / description
      Previous value: -"Commonly used tools for this phase (tool names, not instructions to install or use without authorization)."New value: +"Named tools commonly associated with this phase."
    • removedOutput schema / required
      Removed value: -[
-  "vector",
-  "authorized_use_reminder",
-  "phases",
-  "owasp_references",
-  "attack_technique_ids",
-  "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 establish readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a non-mutating, repeatable operation. The description adds value by disclosing that the returned content is an 'authorized-testing' playbook that covers phases (recon, enumeration, exploitation, post_exploitation) and includes elements like detection signals, mitigations, and 'context-derived tool suggestions.' This goes beyond the annotations by describing the nature of the output 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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, then enumerates the coverage without redundancy. Every phrase contributes (phases, objectives, techniques, detection signals, mitigations, pitfalls, references, tool suggestions). It is compact yet comprehensive, making efficient use of the word budget.

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?

Given that an output schema exists (as indicated), the description does not need to explain return formats. The description covers all key aspects: the action, the resource, the scope (15 vectors), optional narrowing, and the content of the playbook. For a read-only, idempotent tool with full schema coverage, this is complete. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly without ambiguity.

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 provides full coverage (100%) for all three parameters, including enums and descriptions for vector and phase, and property-level descriptions for the target_context object. The description simply restates the existence of a 'selected vector' and 'optional target context,' adding no new meaning beyond the schema. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not compensate or enrich parameter semantics.

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 function: 'Return an authorized-testing methodology for a selected vector and optional target context.' It identifies the specific resource (methodology) and the action (return), and specifies that it covers a full set of phases. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like pentest_generate_payloads or pentest_analyze_response, which have narrowly scoped purposes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies its usage context: it is for retrieving a methodology for a vector, optionally narrowed by target context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over its siblings, nor does it name any alternatives. There is no 'when-not-to-use' guidance or comparison to pentest_map_techniques or pentest_lookup_technique. The usage context is inferable but not explicit, so it falls short of a 4.

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