Skip to main content
Glama

pentest-mcp-server

by io.github.cyanheads

Pentest Lookup Group

pentest_lookup_group
Read-onlyIdempotent

Look up a MITRE ATT&CK threat group or software entry by ID, name, or keyword. Results include ATT&CK identity, aliases, type, description, and associated techniques with procedure-level context from public ATT&CK reporting.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYesATT&CK threat group ID (e.g., "G0007"), software ID (e.g., "S0002"), or name/keyword (e.g., "APT28", "Mimikatz", "Lazarus Group"). ID lookup is exact and case-insensitive; name/keyword search returns the best match.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNoATT&CK ID (e.g., "G0007" for a group, "S0002" for software).
nameNoPrimary display name (e.g., "APT28", "Mimikatz").
typeNo"group" for intrusion sets (threat actors), "software" for malware and tools.
errorNoPresent when the call failed. Absent on success.
aliasesNoKnown alternate names from ATT&CK.
descriptionNoATT&CK description (truncated to 800 characters).
attack_versionNoATT&CK dataset version used (e.g., "Enterprise v19.1").
techniques_usedNoUp to 20 techniques associated with the group or software, including procedure-level context and technique IDs.
authorized_use_reminderNoReminder that threat group data is for authorized testing and research only. Rendered first.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
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 repeatability. The description adds value by specifying what the result contains (identity, aliases, type, description, techniques with procedure-level context), and it notes the query fallback from exact ID to best-match on name/keyword. There is no contradiction with annotations, and the added behavioral detail is useful beyond the annotations.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource, then clarifying the accepted input formats and the nature of results. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant repetition of the tool name or schema details.

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 single-parameter lookup tool with no nested objects and an output schema present (as per context signals), the description covers the purpose, input formats, and return content. The agent has everything needed to decide when to invoke it and what to expect, and the annotations cover side effects. Nothing essential is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single 'query' parameter, so the schema already documents the parameter fully. The description adds extra semantic nuance: ID lookup is exact and case-insensitive, while name/keyword search returns the best match. This exceeds the baseline for high schema coverage and helps the agent understand query behavior without opening the schema.

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 states a specific action ('Look up') with a clear resource ('MITRE ATT&CK threat group or software entry') and the input modes ('ID, name, or keyword'). It differentiates from the sibling pentest_lookup_technique by focusing on groups/software rather than techniques, and it enumerates the returned fields, so an agent can tell exactly what the tool does.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when looking up threat groups or software entries from ATT&CK. It implicitly distinguishes from pentest_lookup_technique by the resource type, but it does not explicitly state 'use this for groups/software, not techniques' or mention any exclusions. Given the sibling names, the context is clear enough without explicit exclusion.

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