HALO (GEMMA-by-GOOGLE)

by XenoCoreGiger31

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

run_medusa

Brute force network logins using Medusa with support for multiple protocols and custom password wordlists.

Instructions

Fast, parallel, modular network login brute-forcer.

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>",
      "username": "<username>"
    },
    "name": "run_medusa"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`target`	Yes	Target host.
`service`	No	Protocol module.	ssh
`username`	Yes	Username to test.
`wordlist`	No	Password wordlist path.	/usr/share/seclists/Passwords/Common-Credentials/darkweb2017_top-1000.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?

Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'fast, parallel, modular' but omits important details like destructiveness, authentication requirements, rate limiting, or that brute-forcing may be disruptive.

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 a single sentence, which is concise but too brief to fully inform. It lacks structure and detail, though it is front-loaded.

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 it is a brute-forcing tool with no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not describe return values, error behavior, or other critical 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 baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what is in the schema.

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 it is a 'network login brute-forcer', which is a specific verb-resource combination. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tool run_hydra, which performs similar brute-forcing.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like run_hydra, or any context for preferred usage scenarios.

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