Hercules MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

network_hping3

Generate custom network packets with hping3 to test firewalls, services, and packet-level behavior. Specify target, port, count, and SYN flag for controlled testing.

Instructions

Purpose: Craft packets with hping3 for firewall, service, or packet-level testing. Constraints: Requires target. count, syn, port, and extra_args map to hping3. Runs with light concurrency and target validation. Example: network_hping3(target='host', count=3, syn=True, port=80)

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "target": "<target>"
    },
    "name": "network_hping3"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`syn`	No
`port`	No
`count`	No
`target`	Yes
`extra_args`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 8, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'Runs with light concurrency and target validation', which adds safety-relevant context. However, it does not disclose potential network impact, privilege requirements, or side effects beyond packet crafting, leaving important gaps for a security tool that sends packets.

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 organized into Purpose, Constraints, and Example, front-loading the most important information. Each sentence is concise and informative, with no wasted words.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The description provides the core usage context, constraints, and an example, which is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool. Since an output schema exists, return values don't need to be explained. It could mention prerequisites or consequences, but it is reasonably complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It states that 'count, syn, port, and extra_args map to hping3' and gives an example, which connects parameters to the underlying tool's arguments. However, it doesn't individually explain each parameter's meaning, relying on the agent's familiarity with hping3 and the example.

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 'Craft packets with hping3' which is a specific verb and resource, and explicitly mentions its purpose for firewall, service, or packet-level testing. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like nmap_scan or network_curl, which focus on scanning or HTTP requests.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool (firewall, service, or packet-level testing) and includes constraints like requiring a target. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the stated use cases imply appropriate selection among the sibling network tools.

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