Cybersec Toolkit

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

run_tool

Execute installed cybersecurity tools or system utilities locally or via SSH with sanitized arguments, timeout control, and truncated output.

Instructions

Execute an installed cybersecurity tool or system utility and return its output.

Runs tools from the 670+ registry as well as ~120 standard system utilities (strings, file, curl, grep, base64, xxd, jq, etc.) that are allowed without being in the registry. Arguments are sanitized to prevent shell injection. Timeout is clamped to 1-300s. Output is truncated at 200KB.

Network tools (including curl, wget, ping, etc.) are restricted to local/private targets by default. Set CYBERSEC_MCP_ALLOW_EXTERNAL=1 to allow external targets.

When host is provided, the tool is executed on the remote host via SSH. The tool does not need to be installed locally — only on the remote host.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`args`	No	Command-line arguments as a string (e.g. "--version" or "-sV 10.0.0.1").
`host`	No	Optional remote host name (as configured via manage_remote_hosts).
`timeout`	No	Maximum execution time in seconds (default 120, max 300).
`tool_name`	Yes	Name of the tool to run (registry tool or system utility).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.2.0Sep 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does exceptionally well: it discloses argument sanitization against shell injection, timeout clamping to 1-300s, output truncation at 200KB, network restrictions, and remote-host execution semantics. This is far beyond typical tool descriptions.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose and then adds dense, relevant operational details. Every sentence contributes necessary information about allowed inputs, safety, limits, or remote behavior, with no filler.

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 general execution tool with four parameters and an output schema, the description is complete: it covers what can be run, how arguments are handled, timeout and output limits, network restrictions, and remote host behavior. Missing return-format details are acceptable because an output schema is present.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value above the schema by explaining that tool_name may be a registry tool or allowed system utility, that timeout is clamped, and that providing host switches execution to remote SSH mode rather than local execution.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Execute an installed cybersecurity tool or system utility and return its output.' It further narrows the scope by distinguishing registry tools and ~120 allowed system utilities, which separates it from siblings like run_script and run_pipeline without needing to name them explicitly.

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 operational context: local execution by default, remote execution via SSH when host is provided, and network-target restrictions with an explicit environment variable to allow external targets. It does not explicitly state when to prefer run_tool over a named alternative, so it falls short of a 5.

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

Deploy Server