Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kali Linux MCP Server

Kali Linux MCP Server

by AlessandroAnnini
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

nuclei_scan

Scan web targets for vulnerabilities using community-contributed templates and severity filters.

Instructions

Fast vulnerability scanner using community templates with Nuclei

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": "nuclei_scan"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
targetYesTarget URL to scan
templatesNoTemplate tags (e.g., 'cves,misconfigurations')
severityNoSeverity filter (critical,high,medium,low,info)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
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.

Deploy Server

Other Tools