Skip to main content
Glama

find_continuations

Read-only

When you're STUCK mid-hunt: describe your POSITION — the attacker state/capabilities you hold, stripped of product names — and get the CONTINUATIONS that worked from positions like it, matched against the full disclosed-report BODIES (the concrete step/payload/precondition), not just the distilled card. This is the "I have a messy pile of capabilities, what are my legal moves?" layer.

position: a product-free statement of what you can already do, e.g. "a backend fetches a
  user-supplied URL during import/webhook and I can't read the response (blind)", or "I hold a
  low-priv token and can store config that is later rendered to an admin". The richer/sharper the
  position, the better — vague positions retrieve generic moves.
Optional program: restrict to one program's reports (substring match on handle).

Returns concrete 'move_step' techniques from real reports — including non-obvious cross-class moves
the by-card layer can't surface (e.g. credential-leak-on-redirect, request-smuggling desync). HARD
CONTRACT: every result is status=UNVERIFIED — a LEGAL MOVE, never a confirmed bug. Each carries a
'decisive_check' you must verify against the target (read its code / fire a test) before claiming
anything; the corpus generates the move, the TARGET decides if it survives. Complements
find_attack_approaches (by-card mechanism) — this is the by-step, full-body layer.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
programNo
positionYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only cover readOnly/openWorld; the description goes far beyond them with a HARD CONTRACT that every result is status=UNVERIFIED (a legal move, never a confirmed bug) and that each carries a 'decisive_check' the agent must verify against the target. It also discloses the matching substrate (full report bodies vs. distilled cards), which affects what the tool can surface.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the hardest constraint (UNVERIFIED contract) is placed last for emphasis. It is dense and slightly noisy with all-caps emphasis and asides, but nearly every sentence carries actionable information.

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?

With no output schema, the description still explains the return shape (move_step techniques, decisive_check, status=UNVERIFIED), the source corpus, and param usage, so an agent knows both how to call it and how to interpret results.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for the two non-trivial params: 'position' is defined with concrete examples and a quality caveat, and 'program' is specified as a substring match on handle. The integer 'limit' is left unexplained, keeping this short of a 5.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: it takes a product-free 'position' describing attacker state and returns 'continuations' (concrete move_step techniques) drawn from full disclosed-report bodies. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling find_attack_approaches by labeling itself the 'by-step, full-body layer' versus the by-card layer.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives an explicit trigger ('When you're STUCK mid-hunt') plus two worked examples of the position input and a sharpening hint ('richer/sharper the position, the better — vague positions retrieve generic moves'). It names the complementary alternative and the axis that separates the two tools.

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.