Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MoonMCP

MoonMCP

by Moonwuk
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

content_discovery

Probes a target host for common sensitive paths (admin, backups, config files) using a built-in or custom wordlist, reporting status, size, and content type.

Instructions

Probe an in-scope host for common sensitive paths (admin panels, API docs, .git/.env, backups, config files, ...) using a compact built-in wordlist or a caller-supplied one. Reports each path's status, size and content type. Intrusive: requires MOONMCP_ALLOW_INTRUSIVE and the host to be in scope.

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": "content_discovery"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
targetYes
wordlistNo
concurrencyNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Discloses intrusive nature and required permissions. Reports what is returned (status, size, content type). No annotations provided, so description carries burden. Lacks details on concurrency and rate limiting, but overall good.

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?

Two well-structured sentences. First sentence states purpose and scope, second details behavior and requirements. No wasted words.

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?

Fairly complete given no annotations or output schema. Covers purpose, permissions, parameters partially. Missing concurrency explanation, but overall adequate for agent selection.

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 coverage 0%, description adds meaning for 'target' (in-scope host) and 'wordlist' (built-in or caller-supplied). Does not explain 'concurrency' parameter.

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?

Description clearly states the tool probes an in-scope host for common sensitive paths, providing specific examples like admin panels, .git, etc. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on sensitive path discovery.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Provides clear context: requires MOONMCP_ALLOW_INTRUSIVE and host in scope. Mentions built-in vs caller-supplied wordlist. Does not explicitly state when not to use or alternatives.

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