HALO (GEMMA-by-GOOGLE)

by XenoCoreGiger31

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

run_katana

Crawl a web target and map its attack surface for security assessment. Set target URL and crawl depth.

Instructions

Crawl a web target and map its attack surface.

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_katana"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`depth`	No	Crawl depth.	3
`target`	Yes	Seed URL.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 10, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The description lacks disclosure of behavioral traits. No mention of potential side effects like network requests, noise, authorization needs, or what 'attack surface' mapping entails. With no annotations, the burden is high but unmet.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for the information it conveys.

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?

Despite having only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is too brief. It omits details about output format, error handling, depth behavior, and the scope of 'attack surface'. Incomplete for a scanning tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's 'Seed URL' and 'Crawl depth' descriptions. No additional value from the description.

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 states a specific verb 'crawl' and resource 'web target' with outcome 'map its attack surface'. This is clear but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling reconnaissance tools like run_gobuster or run_ffuf, though the concept of crawling is distinct.

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. No context on prerequisites, suitability, or scenarios where katana is preferred over other similar tools.

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