WebSex

websex_enum4linux_ng

Execute enum4linux-ng to enumerate SMB shares, users, and domain details from authorized targets. Runs directly in a container with supplied arguments.

Instructions

Run enum4linux ng from the WebSex enumeration toolkit. The container executes enum4linux-ng directly with the supplied argv tokens; shell parsing is never used. Runs from the selected engagement namespace; use relative paths for engagement artifacts.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`stdin`	No
`arguments`	Yes
`engagement_id`	Yes
`working_directory`	No	.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Oct 17, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful execution behavior: argv tokens are passed directly with no shell parsing, and execution is scoped to the engagement namespace. It stops short of stating the operation's read-only/non-destructive nature, target requirements, or expected runtime/rate characteristics.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and free of filler. The execution-model detail is dense but relevant rather than padding.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the execution model is covered. Still, an agent gets no description of what enum4linux-ng actually enumerates, and three of four parameters are undocumented in both schema and prose.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across four parameters, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'arguments' are raw argv tokens for enum4linux-ng, but says nothing about 'stdin', 'working_directory', or how 'engagement_id' selects the namespace beyond a passing mention.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Run enum4linux ng'), and the '-ng' qualifier implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling websex_enum4linux. However, it never explicitly contrasts the two variants or says when the ng rewrite is preferred, so differentiation is left to inference.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The only usage guidance is operational ('runs from the selected engagement namespace; use relative paths for engagement artifacts'). There is no statement of when to reach for enum4linux-ng versus websex_enum4linux, smbmap, rpcclient, or netexec, nor any prerequisite or target context.

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

Deploy Server