Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kali Linux MCP Server

Kali Linux MCP Server

by AlessandroAnnini
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

jwt_decode

Decode and analyze JWT tokens to extract payload and header. Optionally verify token signatures using a secret key for security validation.

Instructions

Decode and analyze JWT tokens, optionally verifying signatures

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": {
      "token": "<token>"
    },
    "name": "jwt_decode"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tokenYesJWT token to decode
verifyNoAttempt signature verification
secretNoSecret key for signature verification (optional)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
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.

Deploy Server

Other Tools