HALO (GEMMA-by-GOOGLE)

by XenoCoreGiger31

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

run_ffuf

Fuzz web URLs to uncover hidden directories, parameters, and virtual hosts using custom wordlists and markers.

Instructions

Fast web fuzzer for directories, parameters, and vhosts.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "run_ffuf"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes	URL containing or receiving the FUZZ marker.
`param`	No	Fuzz marker.	FUZZ
`wordlist`	No	Wordlist path.	/usr/share/seclists/Discovery/Web-Content/common.txt

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 10, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

There are no annotations and the description only says 'Fast web fuzzer', which does not disclose behavioral traits such as destructive potential, authentication needs, rate limits, or output format. Basic transparency is lacking.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is extremely concise (6 words) but lacks sufficient detail for an agent to use the tool effectively. It is efficient but at the cost of completeness.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and a minimal description, the context is incomplete. An agent would need more information about expected output, prerequisites, and tool behavior to 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 3 parameters. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies it as a 'web fuzzer' for directories, parameters, and vhosts, which is a specific verb+resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like run_gobuster, which has overlapping capabilities.

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 (e.g., run_gobuster, run_nuclei). The description merely states what it is, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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