Discover available msfvenom encryption formats (aes256, rc4, xor, base64) for payload generation. See supported options to choose encryption for your payload.
List available msfvenom encryption/encoding formats (aes256, rc4, xor, base64, etc.). Use to see what encryption options are available for payload generation. Output: list of supported encryption methods.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states that the output is a list of supported encryption methods, which is minimal. It does not disclose whether it requires msfvenom to be installed, whether it might return an empty list, or any side effects (though a list operation is inherently read-only). The behavior is adequately described for a simple listing tool, but lacks nuance.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with no redundancy. The primary action and resource are front-loaded, and the output is briefly stated. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It tells what it lists, gives examples, and states the output format. A minor gap is the lack of clarification on the difference between encryption and encoding, and whether this list is exclusive to msfvenom or includes other methods, but this does not hinder the agent's ability to call it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters and none are required. According to the rubric, the baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning because there are none to explain, and the schema is empty. This is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List available msfvenom encryption/encoding formats') with specific examples (aes256, rc4, xor, base64). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on encryption, though the inclusion of 'encoding' might cause overlap with the sibling 'list_encoders'. Overall, the purpose is clear and specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides context: 'Use to see what encryption options are available for payload generation.' This gives a reason to use the tool but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or how it differs from alternatives like 'list_encoders'. Usage guidance is present but not fully explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.