Skip to main content
Glama
SlanyCukr

Bug Bounty MCP Server

by SlanyCukr

create_attack_chain

Generate intelligent attack chains for bug bounty hunting by sequencing security tools based on target profiles and objectives like comprehensive or stealth testing.

Instructions

Create intelligent attack chain based on target profile.

Args: target: Target domain, IP, or URL objective: Attack objective (comprehensive, fast, stealth, targeted)

Returns: Intelligent attack chain with sequenced tools

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
objectiveNocomprehensive
targetYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • MCP tool handler implementation for 'create_attack_chain'. This function registers the tool with FastMCP and proxies requests to the backend REST API at '/api/intelligence/create-attack-chain' for generating an intelligent attack chain based on target analysis.
    def create_attack_chain(
        target: str, objective: str = "comprehensive"
    ) -> dict[str, Any]:
        """Create intelligent attack chain based on target profile.
    
        Args:
            target: Target domain, IP, or URL
            objective: Attack objective (comprehensive, fast, stealth, targeted)
    
        Returns:
            Intelligent attack chain with sequenced tools
        """
        data = {"target": target, "objective": objective}
    
        logger.info(f"⚔️ Creating attack chain for {target} with {objective} objective")
        result = api_client.safe_post("api/intelligence/create-attack-chain", data)
    
        if result.get("success"):
            logger.info(f"✅ Attack chain created for {target}")
        else:
            logger.error(f"❌ Attack chain creation failed for {target}")
    
        return result
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While 'create' implies a write operation, it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this executes attacks or just plans them, what permissions/authorization are needed, if it's destructive, rate limits, or how the 'intelligent' sequencing works. The description is insufficient for a tool with security implications.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is appropriately sized with clear sections (purpose, args, returns). The first sentence states the core function, followed by parameter and return documentation. No wasted sentences, though the structure with separate 'Args:' and 'Returns:' sections is slightly less front-loaded than ideal.

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 the complexity (security tool with potential destructive implications), lack of annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers parameters and return value at a high level, but for a tool of this nature, it should provide more behavioral context about what 'create' actually does (planning vs. execution) and security implications.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It documents both parameters (target, objective) and provides examples for target (domain, IP, URL) and objective values (comprehensive, fast, stealth, targeted), adding meaningful context beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain parameter constraints or interactions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool creates an 'intelligent attack chain' based on a 'target profile', specifying the verb (create) and resource (attack chain). It distinguishes from siblings like individual scanning tools (nmap_scan, nuclei_scan) by focusing on sequencing multiple tools, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from workflow-oriented siblings like bugbounty_workflow tools.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for reconnaissance, scanning, and vulnerability assessment, there's no indication of prerequisites, when this automated chain generation is preferable to manual tool selection, or how it relates to workflow tools like bugbounty_workflow variants.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/SlanyCukr/bugbounty-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server