Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
HALO (GEMMA-by-GOOGLE)

HALO (GEMMA-by-GOOGLE)

by XenoCoreGiger31
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

run_gobuster

Brute-force web content, DNS, or virtual hosts using a wordlist to discover hidden directories, subdomains, and vhosts.

Instructions

Brute-force web content, DNS, or vhosts against a wordlist.

Tool call template

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

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

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modeNogobuster mode: dir/dns/vhost.dir
targetYesBase URL or host.
wordlistNoWordlist path./usr/share/seclists/Discovery/Web-Content/common.txt

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'brute-force' implying potentially aggressive behavior, but does not mention rate limiting, authentication needs, resource impact, or whether the tool is read-only. This is insufficient for an agent to anticipate side effects.

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 sentence. It is front-loaded with the core action, though could be more structured with explicit mode mention.

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 (multiple modes, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It fails to explain return values, progress indication, or how it differs from similar tools in the sibling list.

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%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond listing modes. It does not clarify path formats or expected input conventions.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the tool brute-forces web content, DNS, or vhosts using a wordlist. It identifies the verb and resources, but does not explicitly distinguish from closely related sibling tools like run_ffuf.

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 run_ffuf, run_nikto, or run_nmap. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools