Kali MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation3/5
The tools are organized by functional categories (e.g., enumeration, web exploitation, forensics), which helps distinguish them, but there is significant overlap in purpose. For example, 'kali_network_scan' and 'kali_service_scan' both involve scanning, and 'kali_web_exploitation' and 'kali_web_scan' both target web applications, which could lead to confusion in tool selection.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools follow a consistent 'kali_*' prefix with descriptive names (e.g., 'kali_forensics', 'kali_password_crack'), but there are deviations like 'install_kali_package', 'run_kali_command', 'start_kali_container', and 'update_kali_system' that use verb-first patterns, breaking the consistency. Overall, the naming is mostly predictable but not perfectly uniform.
Tool Count2/5
With 25 tools, the count is high and feels heavy for the server's purpose of managing Kali Linux tools and containers. Many tools are narrowly scoped to specific tool categories, which could be consolidated or grouped, making the set overwhelming and potentially redundant for typical agent workflows.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers a broad range of Kali Linux functionalities, including installation, updates, container management, and various security tool categories (e.g., scanning, exploitation, forensics). However, there are minor gaps, such as no explicit tool for managing tool configurations or handling logs, but core operations are well-represented for the domain.
Average 2.6/5 across 25 of 25 tools scored. Lowest: 1.7/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to describe any behavioral traits such as whether it runs commands, analyzes files, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or handles errors. This leaves the agent with no understanding of how the tool operates beyond its vague purpose.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is overly concise to the point of under-specification. 'Digital forensics tools' is a single phrase that fails to convey necessary information, making it inefficient rather than appropriately sized. It lacks structure and doesn't front-load key details, wasting the opportunity to inform the agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool does, how to use it, what it returns, or any behavioral aspects, leaving the agent with insufficient context to invoke it correctly.
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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters ('tool', 'file', 'options') with descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as examples or constraints, but this is acceptable given the high schema coverage, resulting in a baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Digital forensics tools' is vague and tautological, essentially restating the tool name 'kali_forensics' without specifying what action it performs. It lacks a clear verb (e.g., 'run', 'analyze', 'execute') and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'kali_file_analysis' or 'kali_reverse_engineering', which might overlap in forensic contexts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'kali_file_analysis', 'kali_reverse_engineering') that could be related to forensics, the description offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions to help an agent choose appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers none. It doesn't indicate whether this tool executes commands, requires special permissions, has destructive effects, produces output, or has any operational characteristics. For a tool with 'crack' in its name that likely performs security testing operations, this lack of behavioral information is particularly problematic.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While technically concise (two words), this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description doesn't front-load essential information and fails to provide even basic operational context. Every sentence should earn its place, but here the minimal description doesn't earn its place by providing sufficient value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity implied by the tool name ('password_crack'), the lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool does operationally, what it returns, when to use it, or any behavioral characteristics. For a potentially complex security tool with 3 parameters, this minimal description fails to provide necessary context.
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?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with all three parameters well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Password cracking tools' is tautological - it essentially restates the tool name 'kali_password_crack' without specifying what action it performs. While it indicates the domain (password cracking), it doesn't specify whether it runs, configures, lists, or manages these tools, nor does it distinguish this from sibling tools like 'kali_crypto_tools' or 'kali_enumeration_tools' which might have overlapping functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are 22 sibling tools on this server, many in related security domains (crypto_tools, enumeration_tools, web_exploitation), but the description offers no context about when password cracking is appropriate or what distinguishes this from other Kali tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but provides none. It doesn't indicate whether this tool executes commands, launches applications, analyzes files, or performs some other action. There's no mention of permissions required, whether it modifies files, what output to expect, or any behavioral characteristics. The description is essentially non-functional for behavioral understanding.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While technically concise with only three words, this is a case of under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The description fails to convey essential information about the tool's function, making it inefficient despite its brevity. Every word should earn its place, but here the words don't provide meaningful guidance to the agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool does, how to use it, what behavior to expect, or what results it produces. Given the complexity implied by the parameter set and the complete lack of structured metadata, the description fails to provide the necessary context for effective tool selection and invocation.
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 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema fields. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information in the description, which applies here.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Reverse engineering tools' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'kali_reverse_engineering'. It doesn't specify what action the tool performs (e.g., 'run', 'execute', 'analyze with') or what resource it operates on beyond the generic 'tools'. While it distinguishes from some siblings like 'kali_container_status' or 'kali_web_scan', it doesn't clearly differentiate from other analysis tools like 'kali_file_analysis' or 'kali_forensics'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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. There's no mention of when this tool is appropriate, what prerequisites might be needed, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'kali_file_analysis' or 'run_kali_command' that might also handle file analysis. The agent receives no usage context beyond the tool name itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Social engineering tools' gives no indication of what the tool actually does behaviorally—whether it runs commands, installs packages, launches interfaces, or performs other operations. It doesn't mention permissions needed, side effects, or output characteristics.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
While concise with only two words, this is a case of under-specification rather than effective brevity. The description fails to convey essential information and doesn't front-load key details about the tool's function, making it inefficient despite its short length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity implied by the tool name (potentially involving multiple sub-tools like setoolkit and king-phisher), lack of annotations, no output schema, and sibling tools indicating a Kali Linux security context, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how it behaves, or its role within the toolset.
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 100%, with both parameters ('tool' and 'options') fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's already in the schema (e.g., examples of tools, typical options). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Social engineering tools' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'kali_social_engineering'. It lacks a specific verb indicating what action this tool performs (e.g., 'run', 'configure', 'launch') and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'kali_enumeration_tools' or 'kali_web_exploitation' beyond the general category name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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. There are no explicit or implied instructions about appropriate contexts, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'kali_web_exploitation' or 'kali_information_gathering' that might overlap in ethical hacking domains.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to describe what the tool does operationally (e.g., executes commands, runs scripts, interacts with targets), potential side effects (e.g., network traffic, system changes), security implications, or output format. This leaves the agent with no understanding of the tool's behavior beyond its vague domain.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single phrase that is too brief and under-specified for a tool with 3 parameters and no annotations. While concise, it lacks necessary detail and structure—it doesn't front-load key information or provide any actionable context. This brevity results in insufficient content rather than efficient communication.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and many sibling tools), the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's function, behavior, or output, leaving critical gaps for an agent to understand how to use it effectively. The lack of annotations and output schema heightens the need for a more comprehensive description, which is unmet.
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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (tool, target, options) with descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters, such as examples of valid tools or typical options. However, with high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Web exploitation and analysis tools' restates the tool name 'kali_web_exploitation' without specifying a verb or action. It vaguely indicates the domain (web exploitation/analysis) but doesn't explain what the tool actually does (e.g., execute commands, run scripts, perform scans). This is essentially a tautology that adds little beyond the name.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'kali_web_scan', 'kali_network_exploitation', and 'run_kali_command', the description offers no differentiation or context for selecting this specific tool over others. It lacks any mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Stress testing tools' implies potentially destructive operations (e.g., denial-of-service attacks), but the description doesn't state this explicitly, nor does it cover critical aspects like permission requirements, rate limits, side effects, or output format. This leaves the agent with minimal understanding of the tool's behavior and risks.
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 extremely concise at just two words, with zero wasted text. It's front-loaded and doesn't include unnecessary elaboration. While this conciseness contributes to under-specification in other dimensions, it earns full points for being appropriately sized and structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of stress testing (potentially destructive operations with security implications), no annotations, no output schema, and a minimal description, this is completely inadequate. The description doesn't compensate for the lack of structured data, leaving critical gaps in understanding the tool's purpose, behavior, and proper usage.
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 100%, with all three parameters (tool, target, options) documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema (e.g., it doesn't elaborate on tool options or target formats). According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even without param details in the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Stress testing tools' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'kali_stress_testing'. It doesn't specify what action is performed (e.g., 'execute stress testing tools' or 'run denial-of-service attacks') or what resource is targeted. While it distinguishes from most siblings by focusing on stress testing rather than other Kali Linux categories, it lacks the specific verb+resource combination needed for higher clarity.
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., requiring a running Kali container), appropriate contexts (e.g., for testing network resilience), or exclusions (e.g., not for production environments). Given the sibling tools include various Kali categories, there's no indication of how stress testing differs from network exploitation or vulnerability scanning.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. 'Archive and compression tools' suggests file manipulation operations but doesn't disclose whether these are read-only or destructive operations, what permissions might be required, what happens when archives are created or extracted, or any system impacts. The description provides only category-level information without behavioral specifics.
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 extremely concise at just three words. While it's arguably too brief for adequate tool documentation, it's perfectly front-loaded with no wasted words or unnecessary elaboration. Every word contributes to the minimal information provided, making it maximally efficient within its limited scope.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a tool with 4 parameters (including operations like archive creation/extraction), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. 'Archive and compression tools' provides only category-level information without explaining what the tool actually does, how it behaves, what it returns, or when to use it. For a tool that presumably performs file system operations, this level of documentation is inadequate.
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?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 4 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information in the description. The description neither enhances nor detracts from the schema's parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Archive and compression tools' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'kali_archive_tools'. It doesn't specify what the tool actually does (e.g., 'execute archive and compression operations using various command-line tools'). While it mentions the general domain, it lacks a specific verb-action-resource combination that would clearly communicate the tool's function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
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. There's no mention of when this tool is appropriate, what prerequisites might exist, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'kali_file_analysis' or 'run_kali_command'. The agent receives no contextual usage information beyond the tool's name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the domain (CTF) without explaining what the tool does operationally (e.g., runs commands, analyzes files), potential side effects, error handling, or output format. This is inadequate for a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema.
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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, though its brevity contributes to the low scores in other dimensions due to under-specification.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, many overlapping siblings), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the tool's behavior, output expectations, or differentiation from similar tools, making it inadequate for an agent to use effectively without additional context.
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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (tool, file, options). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as examples of tool usage or context for options. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'CTF-specific tools for capture the flag challenges' is tautological, essentially restating the name 'kali_ctf_tools' without specifying what the tool actually does. It mentions the domain (CTF) but lacks a clear verb+resource statement like 'analyze files using various CTF utilities' that would distinguish it from siblings like kali_file_analysis or kali_forensics.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., kali_file_analysis, kali_forensics, kali_reverse_engineering) that might overlap in functionality, the description fails to specify context, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to guess based on the generic CTF label.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to describe any behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only or destructive, what permissions are needed, rate limits, output format, or error handling. For a tool with potential security implications (enumeration), this is a critical gap.
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 a single phrase 'Enumeration and service detection tools', which is appropriately sized and front-loaded. It wastes no words, though it could be more informative. However, it lacks structure (e.g., no separation of purpose from usage).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (enumeration tools in a security context), no annotations, no output schema, and 3 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool does operationally, what to expect as output, or any behavioral constraints. For a tool in this domain, more detail is needed to guide safe and effective use.
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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (tool, target, options) with descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as examples of tools or common options. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Enumeration and service detection tools' states a general purpose but lacks specificity. It mentions the category of tools (enumeration/service detection) but doesn't specify what actions are performed (e.g., scanning, querying, analyzing) or what resources are targeted. It distinguishes somewhat from siblings like 'kali_network_scan' or 'kali_service_scan' by focusing on enumeration, but the distinction is vague.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., for reconnaissance phases), or comparisons to siblings like 'kali_network_scan' or 'kali_service_scan'. It leaves the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It vaguely indicates the tool's domain but doesn't describe key behaviors like what operations are supported, potential side effects (e.g., data modification), authentication needs, or error handling. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to use it effectively.
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 very concise with just three words, which is efficient and front-loaded. However, it may be overly brief, bordering on under-specified, as it doesn't provide enough detail for effective tool selection. Every word earns its place, but more content could improve clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a multi-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how operations are performed, or any behavioral nuances. For a tool that likely involves varied cryptographic functions, more context is needed to guide proper usage.
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 100%, so the schema already documents all 4 parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as examples or context for parameter usage. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate or enhance understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Cryptography and encoding tools' states the general domain but lacks specificity. It mentions the category of tools but doesn't specify what the tool actually does (e.g., 'execute various cryptography and encoding operations'). It distinguishes from some siblings like 'kali_container_status' but not clearly from similar ones like 'kali_file_analysis' or 'kali_archive_tools' in terms of function.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description doesn't mention context, prerequisites, or comparisons with sibling tools. Usage is implied through the generic category, but there's no clear direction for the AI agent to decide between this and other tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It vaguely hints at analysis and extraction but doesn't specify what the tool actually does (e.g., whether it reads file metadata, extracts data, or performs destructive operations), what permissions are needed, or what the output looks like. This leaves critical behavioral traits undefined.
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 a single, concise phrase ('File analysis and extraction tools') that is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, it is overly brief and under-specified for a tool with three parameters and no annotations, slightly reducing its effectiveness despite efficient structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'analysis and extraction' entails, how results are returned, or any behavioral aspects, making it inadequate for an agent to fully understand the tool's function and use it correctly.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting the three parameters (tool, file, options). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining tool choices or option formats, but the schema adequately covers the basics, meeting the baseline for high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'File analysis and extraction tools' states a general purpose but lacks specificity. It mentions both analysis and extraction, which gives a vague sense of function, but doesn't specify what resources are involved or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'kali_forensics' or 'kali_reverse_engineering' that might overlap in file-related tasks.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and input parameters alone, with no reference to sibling tools that might handle similar functions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It vaguely mentions 'exploitation and post-exploitation' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only or destructive, permission requirements, rate limits, or output format. This is inadequate for a tool that likely involves security testing operations.
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 a single, efficient phrase: 'Network exploitation and post-exploitation tools'. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, though it could be more informative. However, it's appropriately sized for a tool name that hints at its function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of network exploitation tools, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool does operationally, what to expect as output, or safety considerations, making it inadequate for an agent to use effectively in a security context.
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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (tool, target, options). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as examples of tool usage or context for options. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Network exploitation and post-exploitation tools' states a general purpose but lacks specificity. It mentions a category of tools rather than what this particular tool does (e.g., execute or manage these tools). It distinguishes from siblings like 'kali_network_scan' by focusing on exploitation rather than scanning, but doesn't specify the verb or resource clearly.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description implies usage for network exploitation, but it doesn't specify prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions compared to siblings like 'kali_web_exploitation' or 'kali_vulnerability_scan', leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It hints at network operations but doesn't specify if these tools require elevated privileges, are read-only or destructive, have rate limits, or what output to expect. For security tools, this lack of transparency is problematic.
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 a single, efficient phrase with no wasted words. However, it's overly concise to the point of under-specification, lacking necessary details for a tool of this complexity. It's front-loaded but incomplete.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of network sniffing/spoofing tools, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain behavioral traits, usage context, or expected outcomes, leaving critical gaps for an AI agent to operate safely and effectively.
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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining tool options or interface selection. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Network sniffing and spoofing tools' states the general domain but lacks specificity. It doesn't mention what resources are targeted (e.g., packets, network traffic) or distinguish from siblings like 'kali_network_scan' or 'kali_wireless_tools'. The purpose is vague rather than clearly articulated.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on the name alone. This is a significant gap for a tool with potential overlap with other network-related siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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. It mentions 'Scan for vulnerabilities' but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits like required permissions, potential impact (e.g., network disruption), rate limits, or output format. This is inadequate for a tool that likely performs active scanning.
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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for its purpose, making it easy to parse without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of vulnerability scanning, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, output, error handling, and differentiation from siblings, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use the tool effectively.
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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('target' and 'tool') adequately. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining tool selection criteria or scan depth, meeting the baseline for high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Scan for vulnerabilities using Kali tools' states a clear verb ('Scan') and resource ('vulnerabilities'), but it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'kali_web_scan' or 'kali_network_scan'. It specifies the tool category but lacks detail on what the scan entails.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'kali_web_scan' or 'kali_network_scan'. The description implies usage for vulnerability scanning but offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 but offers minimal behavioral insight. It doesn't disclose if this is for reconnaissance, exploitation, or other actions, nor does it mention permissions, side effects, or output format. For a tool with 3 parameters and no annotations, this is inadequate.
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, efficient phrase with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a high-level category, though this conciseness comes at the cost of detail. Every word earns its place in conveying the tool's domain.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how it behaves, or when to use it, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand and invoke it correctly in a context with many sibling tools.
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 100%, so parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining tool options or interface requirements. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Wireless network analysis tools' states the general domain but lacks specificity about what the tool actually does (e.g., scanning, attacking, monitoring). It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'kali_network_scan' or 'kali_sniffing_spoofing', which could overlap in wireless contexts. The purpose is vague rather than clearly defined.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'kali_network_scan' and 'kali_sniffing_spoofing' that might handle wireless tasks, the description offers no context for selection. Usage is implied only by the name and general category.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but lacks critical details: it doesn't mention if this requires root/sudo permissions, if it modifies system state permanently, what happens on failure, or any rate limits. For a system mutation tool, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core action and context efficiently, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a system installation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, error handling, or return values. For a tool that likely requires elevated privileges and modifies system state, this leaves the agent under-informed.
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?
The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides. Since schema description coverage is 100% (the 'package' parameter is fully described), the baseline score of 3 applies. The description doesn't clarify package naming conventions, versioning, or dependencies, but the schema handles the basics adequately.
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 action ('install') and target ('a package in Kali Linux using apt'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'run_kali_command' or 'update_kali_system', which could also involve package operations, so it falls short of a perfect score.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention if this is for installing new packages only, how it differs from 'run_kali_command' with apt install, or prerequisites like needing the container running. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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. It mentions 'gather information' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what the output format looks like. The description is too vague to inform the agent adequately.
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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes examples that add clarity without verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of information gathering tools and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what information is returned, how results are structured, or any operational constraints, leaving significant gaps for the agent.
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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('target' and 'tool'). The description adds minimal value by implying the tool is used for information gathering, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or constraints beyond what the schema provides.
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 action ('gather information') and the target ('about target'), with examples of specific tools (whois, dns, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings like 'kali_network_scan' or 'kali_web_scan' by focusing on information gathering rather than scanning or exploitation, but doesn't explicitly contrast them.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'kali_enumeration_tools' or 'kali_network_scan'. The description implies usage for initial reconnaissance but lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'perform a network scan' but doesn't specify whether this is read-only or destructive, what permissions are needed, potential impacts on networks, or output format. For a network scanning tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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, efficient sentence with zero waste, clearly front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of network scanning (potentially intrusive or resource-intensive), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and output expectations, which are crucial for an AI agent to use this tool safely and effectively.
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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('target' and 'scan_type') adequately. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of scan types or target formats, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.
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 action ('perform a network scan') and the resource ('using Kali tools'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'kali_service_scan' or 'kali_vulnerability_scan', which might have overlapping network scanning functions.
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 like 'kali_service_scan' or 'kali_vulnerability_scan', nor does it mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. It merely states what the tool does without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential network impact, rate limits, or output format. For a scanning tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a scanning tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'open services' entails, the scan's behavior, or expected results, leaving critical gaps for an AI agent to understand and use the tool effectively.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'target' parameter clearly documented as 'Target IP to scan'. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or scope details, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 action ('Scan') and target ('open services on target'), making the purpose understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'kali_network_scan' or 'kali_vulnerability_scan', which might have overlapping functionality, so it misses full sibling differentiation.
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 like 'kali_network_scan' or 'kali_vulnerability_scan'. It lacks context about prerequisites, target types, or scenarios where this specific scan is preferred, offering minimal usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It states the general function but doesn't describe what the scan does (e.g., types of vulnerabilities checked, output format, whether it's destructive or safe, runtime behavior, or potential side effects). For a security scanning tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational characteristics.
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, efficient phrase ('Web application security scanning') that's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. There's zero wasted verbiage, and it immediately communicates the essential function without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (security scanning with multiple tool options), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects, output expectations, error handling, or integration with sibling tools. For a tool that likely produces detailed security findings, more context is needed to guide effective use.
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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (target, tool, options) with basic descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain tool selection criteria, option formatting, or target URL requirements. This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding.
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 'Web application security scanning' clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('scanning') and resource ('web application security'), making it immediately understandable. It distinguishes from most siblings like 'kali_network_scan' or 'kali_vulnerability_scan' by specifying the web application focus, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'kali_web_exploitation' which might have overlapping scope.
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. It doesn't mention when to choose it over sibling tools like 'kali_web_exploitation', 'kali_vulnerability_scan', or 'kali_network_scan', nor does it specify prerequisites, target types, or appropriate contexts for web scanning versus other security tasks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Execute a command') but fails to describe critical traits: whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, what permissions are required, how output is returned, error handling, or execution limits (e.g., timeouts). For a command execution tool in a security context, this lack of transparency is a significant gap.
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, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core action ('Execute a command') and specifies the context ('inside the Kali Linux container') efficiently. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse and understand at a glance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of executing commands in a Kali container (a security-focused environment with potential for destructive actions), the description is incomplete. No annotations exist to clarify safety or permissions, and there's no output schema to describe return values. The description lacks context on execution environment, constraints, or error cases, leaving critical gaps for an AI agent to navigate.
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 100%, with clear documentation for both parameters ('command' and 'workdir'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain command syntax, security considerations, or valid workdir paths. This meets the baseline score of 3 since the schema adequately covers parameter details.
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 verb ('Execute') and resource ('a command inside the Kali Linux container'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'install_kali_package' or 'start_kali_container' by focusing on command execution rather than package management or container lifecycle operations. However, it doesn't specify what types of commands are appropriate or the execution context beyond the container.
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the container must be running), exclusions (e.g., unsafe commands), or relationships to siblings like 'kali_container_status' for checking container state. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone, which is insufficient for informed selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Stop' implies a mutation operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, what happens to running processes, if data is preserved, or any error conditions. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a tool that likely affects system state.
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, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters and effectively communicates the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given this is a mutation tool (stopping a container) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'Stop' entails behaviorally, what the expected outcome is, or potential side effects. For a tool that likely changes system state, more context about the operation's impact is needed.
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?
The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it appropriately doesn't mention any parameters, earning a baseline score of 4 for this context.
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 action ('Stop') and the target resource ('the Kali Linux container'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'kali_container_status' or 'start_kali_container' beyond the obvious action difference, missing explicit sibling distinction.
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, prerequisites, or exclusions. Given the sibling tools include 'start_kali_container' and 'kali_container_status', there's an implied context of container management, but no explicit usage instructions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Update' implies a mutation operation, it doesn't specify critical details like whether this requires elevated privileges, if it's destructive (e.g., could break existing configurations), what the typical runtime is, or what happens on failure. For a system update tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without any fluff. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Update') and resource, making it immediately scannable. Every word earns its place, with no redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a system update operation (potentially destructive, requiring privileges) and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'update' entails (e.g., apt-get upgrade vs. dist-upgrade), what gets returned (success/failure status, logs), or error handling. This leaves too many unknowns for safe agent invocation.
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?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose. A baseline of 4 is applied since the schema fully handles parameters, and the description doesn't add unnecessary details.
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 'Update Kali Linux system packages' clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('Kali Linux system packages'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'install_kali_package' (which installs specific packages) by focusing on system-wide updates. However, it doesn't specify if this updates all packages or just security patches, keeping it from a perfect score.
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing root access), timing considerations (e.g., during maintenance windows), or when to choose this over running individual package updates. With many sibling tools available, this lack of contextual guidance is a significant gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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. It states the tool checks running status, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like what 'running' means (e.g., active vs. paused), error handling (e.g., if container doesn't exist), or output format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple status-checking tool, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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 tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete. It states what the tool does but lacks details on behavioral context (e.g., output format, error conditions). For a status-check tool, this is adequate but leaves gaps that could hinder precise agent invocation.
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?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). With no parameters to document, the description doesn't need to add parameter semantics. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as there's nothing to compensate for, and the description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters.
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 action ('Check') and resource ('Kali container'), specifying the purpose as determining if the container is running. It distinguishes from siblings like start/stop_kali_container by focusing on status checking rather than control operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., run_kali_command might also check status).
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description implies usage for checking container status, but doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., container must exist), when-not scenarios, or direct alternatives among siblings. This leaves the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits like permissions needed, side effects, or error handling. It lacks details on what 'start' entails operationally beyond the basic intent.
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, efficient sentence that is front-loaded with the core action, with no wasted words. It effectively communicates the essential information without redundancy or fluff.
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 tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but minimal. It covers the basic action and condition, yet lacks context on outcomes or integration with sibling tools, leaving some gaps for an agent's understanding.
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?
Since there are 0 parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter details, and it appropriately avoids unnecessary information, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose.
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 the specific action ('Start') and resource ('Kali Linux container'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'stop_kali_container' and 'kali_container_status' by focusing on activation rather than deactivation or status checking.
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 provides clear context for usage ('if not running'), which helps determine when to invoke it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as when to use 'kali_container_status' first or avoid if already running.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![kali-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Vasanthadithya-mundrathi/kali-mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Vasanthadithya-mundrathi/kali-mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![kali-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Vasanthadithya-mundrathi/kali-mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Vasanthadithya-mundrathi/kali-mcp-server)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/Vasanthadithya-mundrathi/kali-mcp-server'

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