Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MoonMCP

MoonMCP

by Moonwuk
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

vuln_scan

Run a nuclei template-based vulnerability scan against a target, with optional template and severity filters.

Instructions

Run a nuclei template-based vulnerability scan against an in-scope target.

Requires nuclei to be installed (there is no safe stdlib equivalent for template-based scanning). templates maps to nuclei -t and severity to -severity (e.g. 'critical,high'). Intrusive: requires MOONMCP_ALLOW_INTRUSIVE, MOONMCP_ALLOW_EXTERNAL_TOOLS and the host 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": "vuln_scan"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
targetYes
severityNo
templatesNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description discloses intrusive behavior, external tool dependency, and parameter mapping. It does not detail output or side effects, but adequately characterizes the tool as a non-safe, external-scanning operation.

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 short paragraphs, first sentence captures purpose, every sentence adds critical information (prerequisites, parameter mapping, restrictions). No wasted words.

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 no output schema, the description lacks details about return values or result formatting, which could help an agent anticipate the response. Otherwise, it covers prerequisites and parameter usage adequately.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It maps 'templates' to nuclei -t and 'severity' to -severity with an example. 'Target' is implied by context but not further detailed; overall adds value beyond 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 'Run a nuclei template-based vulnerability scan against an in-scope target,' specifying the verb, resource, and tool. It distinguishes from siblings like port_scan and run_scanner by explicitly mentioning nuclei and templates.

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?

The description provides prerequisites (nuclei installed, no safe stdlib equivalent), and intrusive nature requiring env vars. It implies when to use but does not explicitly name alternatives among siblings.

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