WebSex

websex_kube_bench

Run kube-bench security benchmarks on Kubernetes clusters from an authorized WebSex engagement namespace, executing arguments directly without shell parsing and using relative paths for artifacts.

Instructions

Run kube bench from the WebSex cloud container iac toolkit. The container executes kube-bench 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. It usefully discloses that kube-bench runs via direct argv tokens with no shell parsing (a real safety/injection property) and the namespace/relative-path behavior. It omits cluster access requirements, whether it reads or alters cluster state, and rate/scope limits.

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 core action and followed by execution and path semantics. No filler or redundancy, though it is slightly terse given the surrounding gaps.

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. However, for an execution-wrapper tool with two required parameters and zero schema coverage, the description leaves required-input handling and execution constraints under-specified.

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 4 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only hints at 'arguments' (argv tokens) and working_directory (relative paths); 'engagement_id' and 'stdin' receive no explanation, leaving half the parameters undocumented in both the schema and description.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Run kube bench') and names the execution context (container IaC toolkit). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not differentiate itself from close siblings like websex_kube_hunter or websex_docker_bench, so an agent must already know kube-bench's role.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing (e.g., kube-hunter vs docker-bench vs kube-bench). The only context offered is 'Runs from the selected engagement namespace' and 'use relative paths', which describe mechanics rather than selection guidance.

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

Deploy Server