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

HALO (GEMMA-by-GOOGLE)

by XenoCoreGiger31
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

run_masscan

Perform high-speed asynchronous TCP port scans on targets or CIDR ranges to identify open ports and services.

Instructions

High-speed asynchronous TCP port scan of a target or CIDR range.

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_masscan"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rateNoPackets per second.1000
portsNoPort or range.1-65535
targetYesIP, hostname, or CIDR to scan.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions 'high-speed asynchronous' which implies network impact, but lacks details on permissions, potential destructiveness, rate limiting, or response handling. Basic but insufficient for informed selection.

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?

Single sentence with no redundancy. Key information is front-loaded ('High-speed asynchronous TCP port scan'). Every word contributes to purpose.

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, potential for misuse) and lack of output schema, the description is too sparse. Missing details on output format, execution context, warnings, or integration with other tools. Needs expansion for 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter information beyond the schema definitions. It does not enhance understanding of parameters or provide usage examples.

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 tool performs a 'high-speed asynchronous TCP port scan' on a 'target or CIDR range', using specific verb 'scan' and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like run_nmap by emphasizing high-speed and asynchronous nature.

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 (e.g., run_nmap, run_ffuf). The description implies speed advantage but does not specify context, prerequisites, or timeouts when not to use.

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