Kali Linux MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation4/5
Tools are mostly distinct—each targets a specific security task (web scanning, JWT, SSL, VPN, etc.). Some overlap exists among web scanners (dirb, nikto, nuclei, zap), but descriptions clarify their different foci. Only minor potential confusion between nikto and nuclei.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case (e.g., dirb_scan, vpn_connect, jwt_decode). The few variations like jwt_security_test still use the same structure, so naming is predictable and uniform.
Tool Count5/5
With 14 tools, the set is well-scoped for a security testing server. It covers a range of essential tasks (network scanning, web application scanning, JWT analysis, VPN management) without being overwhelming or too sparse.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers major security testing areas: network scanning (nmap), web vuln scanning (multiple tools), SQL injection (sqlmap), SSL (testssl), JWT, directory brute-force, JS library vulns, and security headers. Minor gaps like exploitation or password cracking exist, but core workflows are covered.
Average 3.2/5 across 14 of 14 tools scored. Lowest: 2.5/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility. It fails to disclose that SQLMap sends potentially malicious payloads that could disrupt or damage the target, nor does it mention authorization requirements, invasiveness, or response format. The description is misleadingly benign.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence without fluff, achieving conciseness. However, it sacrifices informativeness—it states the purpose but lacks structure (e.g., no bullet points or additional context). It earns its place but could be more effective.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., vulnerability list), how to interpret results, or safety considerations. The complexity of SQLMap scanning demands richer context.
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?
All 4 parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage). The description itself adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate. No enrichment like usage examples or constraints is provided.
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 clearly states the tool tests for SQL injection vulnerabilities using SQLMap. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like dirb_scan (directory brute force) or nmap_scan (network scanning), as it specifically targets SQL injection via a well-known tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, target suitability, or avoidance conditions (e.g., 'use only with explicit permission'). The description lacks any contextual direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as network impact, authentication requirements, or potential consequences of scanning. It merely states the intention to scan.
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?
The description is a single sentence with no unnecessary words, making it concise. However, it borders on being too brief.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema is provided, and the description does not explain what the tool returns or how to interpret the scan results. Given the complexity of a scanning tool, this is incomplete.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema descriptions are minimal but present.
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 clearly states the tool scans web servers for vulnerabilities and misconfigurations using Nikto. However, it does not differentiate from sibling scanning tools like nmap_scan or nuclei_scan.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks any context about prerequisites or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states it is a 'fast vulnerability scanner' but does not disclose potential impacts like network requests, required permissions, or any side effects. The lack of detail leaves agents uninformed about safety or constraints.
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?
The description is a single sentence of 7 words, which is very concise. It front-loads the core purpose. However, it could include more context without excessive length, such as typical usage or critical notes.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of multiple sibling security scanners, the description lacks context to differentiate usage. No output schema or annotations exist. For a tool with 3 parameters—one required—the description is too sparse to fully inform an agent about correct invocation and expectations.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., 'target' as URL, 'templates' as tags, 'severity' filter). It does not clarify template syntax or valid values.
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 clearly identifies the tool as a fast vulnerability scanner using Nuclei with community templates. It conveys the core purpose and distinguishes from sibling tools like nmap_scan (network scanning) or sqlmap_scan (SQL injection) by emphasizing template-based scanning.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as nikto_scan or zap_scan. There is no mention of prerequisites, recommended use cases, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist; description only mentions optional verification but omits details on error handling, account of decode output, or behavior when verification fails.
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?
Single sentence is efficient and front-loaded, but could slightly benefit from clearer segmentation of decode vs. verification steps.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema; description fails to indicate return structure (e.g., header, payload, signature). Given the tool's complexity and sibling context, more detail is needed.
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?
Schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions; the description adds minimal value beyond confirming optional verification behavior.
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?
Description clearly specifies the action (decode and analyze) and resource (JWT tokens), and hints at distinguishing from sibling jwt_security_test by mentioning signature verification.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like jwt_security_test; lacks conditional usage or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'comprehensive web application security scanner' without mentioning whether scans can be destructive, require authentication, or affect targets.
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?
The description is concise at one sentence, front-loading the core purpose. However, it is somewhat vague with the word 'comprehensive', though it earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and 2 parameters, the description should explain return values, risks, or expected behavior. It fails to provide contextual completeness, such as scan duration or results format.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what is in the schema.
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 clearly states the tool scans web applications for security issues and explicitly names OWASP ZAP, distinguishing it from sibling scanners like nikto_scan or nuclei_scan.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as dirb_scan or sqlmap_scan. The description lacks explicit usage context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as potential intrusiveness, network impact, or permission requirements. The agent lacks awareness of whether the scan could trigger alarms or consume significant resources.
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 a single, well-formed sentence that directly states the purpose. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every word earns its place without unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description should explain what information is returned (e.g., open ports, services, OS detection). It fails to do so. Additionally, it omits context like rate limits or scan duration, making it incomplete for an agent to predict behavior.
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?
The input schema has 100% coverage, so parameters are described. However, the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema—it does not explain the differences between quick, full, and stealth scans or how to specify ports effectively. A baseline of 3 is appropriate since schema covers the basics.
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 clearly states the tool performs network scanning with Nmap to discover hosts, ports, and services. It uses a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes itself from sibling security scanning tools like sqlmap_scan or nikto_scan, which target web applications or databases.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as nikto_scan or dirb_scan. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or which scan types are appropriate for different scenarios, leaving the agent without decision-making support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full burden but only states the basic action. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the scan is read-only, potential side effects, or limitations beyond the target URL format.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately communicates the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple but lacks output schema. The description omits details about return format, error handling, or expected behavior, leaving the agent with incomplete context.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter. The tool description adds no extra information beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 3 applies.
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 clearly states the action (scan) and the resource (vulnerable JavaScript libraries) with the tool name (retire.js). It distinguishes itself from sibling scanning tools by specifying the focus on JavaScript libraries.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like nikto_scan, nuclei_scan, or dirb_scan. The description lacks context for appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention that the tool performs active network scanning, may be intrusive, requires network access, or could generate traffic that impacts the target.
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?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource, but could be slightly expanded without losing conciseness.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity and full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate but lacks behavioral context (e.g., scanning duration, output format). More details would help, especially without an output schema.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already documented. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, earning a baseline score of 3.
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 uses verb 'Test' and specifies resource 'SSL/TLS configuration and vulnerabilities', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like sqlmap_scan or nikto_scan. However, it could be more specific about the types of checks (e.g., protocol support, cipher strengths).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., for SSL-related scans vs web app scans). Usage is implied by the tool name and description, but no exclusions or recommendations are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, and the description lacks any disclosure of behavioral traits such as prerequisites, side effects, or safety. It only states the basic action.
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 a single sentence with no wasted words, perfectly concise for the simple action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description should provide more context about behavioral aspects. It fails to mention if disconnect is always safe or requires being connected, leaving gaps for an AI agent.
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?
The tool has no parameters, and the input schema provides 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter info, but baseline for 0 parameters is 4.
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 clearly states the action 'Disconnect' and the resource 'Mullvad VPN'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like vpn_connect (connect) and vpn_status (status check).
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The context of disconnecting is implied but no explicit when/when-not/alternatives are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. The term 'brute-force' hints at possible server load but does not specify concurrency, rate limiting, or other behavioral traits. The agent lacks details about the tool's impact, such as whether it may cause heavy traffic or require specific permissions.
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 a single, concise sentence that communicates the core function without unnecessary words. It is appropriately front-loaded and efficient for a straightforward tool.
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?
Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description is somewhat complete for a simple brute-forcing tool. However, it does not explain what the output contains, how long it might take, or any risk profile (e.g., potential service disruption). For a tool that could be aggressive, more context would benefit the agent.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it mentions a default wordlist path but repeats the same info. No additional semantic or usage context is provided for the parameters.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: using DIRB to brute-force discover hidden directories and files on web servers. The verb 'discover' and resource 'hidden directories and files' are specific, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like nmap_scan or sqlmap_scan which have different scanning functions.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like nikto_scan or nuclei_scan. The description implies usage for web directory brute-forcing but does not mention prerequisites, complementary tools, or cases where it should not be used (e.g., against production servers).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only says 'check' but does not clarify whether the tool makes HTTP requests, is read-only, or any side effects. The minimal description leaves significant ambiguity about behavior.
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?
The description is a single short sentence with no extraneous information. It is front-loaded and concise, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., headers list, pass/fail status) or any operational details, leaving gaps for an agent to understand the full context.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'target' described as 'Target URL to check'. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the verb 'Check', the resource 'HTTP security headers configuration', and the purpose 'for best practices'. It distinguishes the tool from sibling security scanners (e.g., nmap_scan, nikto_scan) by focusing specifically on security headers.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The intended usage is only implied by the tool name and description, lacking context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions what vulnerabilities are tested but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool sends HTTP requests, modifies state, or requires authentication. For a security test tool, this is a significant gap.
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?
The description is a single sentence that conveys the core purpose efficiently. It is concise but could benefit from more structured formatting (e.g., bullet points for clarity).
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?
Given no output schema and two parameters, the description is minimally adequate but lacks details on return values, error handling, or behavioral context. For a security testing tool, more completeness is expected.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% (both token and endpoint are described). The description adds no additional insight beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: testing JWT tokens for specific vulnerabilities (none algorithm, weak secrets). The verb 'Test' and resource 'JWT token' are explicit, and it distinguishes from siblings like jwt_decode, which decodes tokens.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for security testing but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., jwt_decode for decoding, or other scanners for different vulnerabilities). No when-to-use or when-not-to-use context is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only states 'connect' without details on authentication, side effects, or whether a previous connection must be disconnected first.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence with no waste, but it lacks structure such as separate sections for purpose and usage.
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?
With two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the basic purpose but misses contextual details like connection time, prerequisites, or what happens on failure.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema.
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?
Description clearly states the action (connect), the specific service (Mullvad VPN), and the context (anonymous security testing). It distinguishes well from sibling tools like vpn_disconnect and vpn_status.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'for anonymous security testing' implies a use context, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like vpn_disconnect, nor any mention of prerequisites or conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It does not specify if the operation is read-only, what happens if no VPN is connected, or any side effects.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence, which is efficient and front-loaded. However, it could be slightly expanded to include more context without being verbose.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one optional boolean parameter, no output schema), the description is adequate but leaves gaps: it doesn't explain what 'server information' entails or the format of the status output.
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?
The only parameter 'verbose' is fully described in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 clearly states the verb 'Check' and the resource 'VPN connection status and server information'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like vpn_connect and vpn_disconnect, which perform different actions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for checking status, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites like an active VPN connection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![kali-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/AlessandroAnnini/kali-mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/AlessandroAnnini/kali-mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![kali-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/AlessandroAnnini/kali-mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/AlessandroAnnini/kali-mcp-server)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/AlessandroAnnini/kali-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server