Skip to main content
Glama
DansPK

Kali MCP

by DansPK
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

evasive_payload

Generate AV-evading payloads with layered obfuscation: polymorphic encoding, encryption, template injection, and process migration. Use instead of msfvenom when detection is a concern.

Instructions

Advanced payload crafter for anti-virus evasion. Applies multiple evasion layers: polymorphic encoding (shikata_ga_nai, xor), encryption (AES256, RC4), template injection into legitimate executables (putty, plink), process migration on execution, bad character avoidance, and obfuscation padding. Use INSTEAD of msfvenom when AV evasion is needed. Use msfvenom for simple/standard payload generation. Output: saved payload file path with size, plus any msfvenom warnings about the chosen configuration.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fmtNoOutput format. Default: exe. Options: exe, dll, python, c, powershell, raw, vba
archNoTarget architecture: x86, x64 (default), armle
optsNoAdditional raw msfvenom options (e.g. '--smallest' for minimum size)
lhostYesListen host IP — where the payload connects back
lportYesListen port — which port the payload connects to
encoderNoEncoder name or 'auto'. Auto picks best encoder per architecture (shikata_ga_nai for x86, xor for x64)
encryptNoEncryption layer: aes256, rc4, xor. Adds another layer of obfuscation.
payloadYesPayload name (e.g. 'windows/x64/meterpreter/reverse_tcp', 'windows/meterpreter/reverse_https')
badcharsNoCharacters to avoid in shellcode (default: '\x00'). Add '\x0a\x0d' for HTTP payloads.
platformNoTarget platform: windows (default), linux, android
templateNoTemplate executable to inject into. Use 'putty', 'plink', 'notepad', or path to custom exe.
obfuscateNoEnable extra obfuscation padding to inflate encoder space and evade signature detection
iterationsNoEncoding iterations for polymorphism (default: 5). Higher = better evasion but larger payload.
encrypt_keyNoCustom encryption key. Random if not specified.
inject_processNoProcess to migrate into on execution (e.g. 'explorer.exe', 'svchost.exe')

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does well by revealing the evasion layers, process migration behavior, and the exact output format (saved file path with size and msfvenom warnings). It doesn't mention prerequisites or error conditions, but the core behavioral profile is clearly communicated.

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?

Three dense sentences, all earning their place: purpose, usage guidance, and output. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids redundancy, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This is a complex 15-parameter tool with no output schema, so the description needs to fill gaps. It covers the essential context: what the tool does, when to use it, and what it returns. Minor omissions like prerequisite dependencies on msfvenom and potential failure conditions keep it from a 5, but overall it is complete enough for correct tool selection and invocation.

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 fully documented in the schema. The description adds high-level context by grouping techniques (encoding, encryption, injection) but does not add per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline 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 names a specific verb and resource ('payload crafter') and defines its exact purpose: anti-virus evasion. It enumerates concrete techniques (shikata_ga_nai, AES256, template injection) and explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling msfvenom, making the tool's identity unmistakable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives explicit routing guidance: 'Use INSTEAD of msfvenom when AV evasion is needed. Use msfvenom for simple/standard payload generation.' This clearly states when to use this tool and when to choose the alternative, leaving no ambiguity.

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