Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kali Linux MCP Server

Kali Linux MCP Server

by AlessandroAnnini
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

testssl_scan

Test SSL/TLS configurations and detect vulnerabilities like Heartbleed and CCS injection using testssl.sh. Identify weak ciphers and protocol issues.

Instructions

Test SSL/TLS configuration and vulnerabilities with testssl.sh

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": "testssl_scan"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
targetYesTarget hostname:port or URL
checksNoSpecific checks to run (e.g., 'heartbleed', 'ccs')

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
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.

Deploy Server

Other Tools