Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-noctua

mcp-noctua

by NeveuGregor
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

run_tool

Execute a whitelisted reconnaissance or scanning tool in a Docker environment with configurable timeout. For authorized security audits only.

Instructions

Execute un outil de reconnaissance/scan whiteliste dans la toolbox (forme exec, sans shell : pas de pipe ni de chainage). Usage test AUTORISE uniquement. Borne par un timeout qui tue reellement le process. Pour enchainer des outils, faire plusieurs appels.

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": {
      "command": "<command>"
    },
    "name": "run_tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
commandYesCommande complete, p.ex. 'httpx -u http://cible -title -tech-detect'.
timeoutNoTimeout en secondes (defaut 300, max 3600).

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, the description fully discloses key behaviors: no shell, no pipe/chaining, timeout kills process, and restricted to authorized usage. It could add return format details but covers critical safety aspects.

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?

The description is a single concise paragraph, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence contributes unique information without redundancy.

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?

Given 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, constraints, and parameter behavior adequately. It is missing explicit mention of output handling, but for a command executor, the behavior is standard.

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 100% with descriptive parameter descriptions. The description adds behavioral context for timeout (kills process) and provides an example command, enhancing understanding 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 specifies that the tool executes whitelisted reconnaissance/scan tools in exec form without shell, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like port_scan or vuln_scan which are specific tools. The scope is precise.

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?

It states usage is for authorized tests only, and that to chain tools multiple calls are needed. While it implies not to use pipes or unauthorized usage, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for other scenarios.

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