Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Kali Linux MCP Server

Kali Linux MCP Server

by AlessandroAnnini
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

zap_scan

Run comprehensive web application security scans with OWASP ZAP. Choose baseline, full, or API scan types to identify vulnerabilities.

Instructions

Comprehensive web application security scanner using OWASP ZAP

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": "zap_scan"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
targetYesTarget URL to scan
scan_typeNoScan type: baseline (quick), full (thorough), or api

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 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.

Deploy Server

Other Tools