HALO (GEMMA-by-GOOGLE)

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

run_nikto

Scan web servers for known vulnerabilities and misconfigurations. Specify target host, port, and SSL to identify security issues.

Instructions

Scan a web server for known vulnerabilities and misconfigurations.

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_nikto"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ssl`	No	Use HTTPS.
`port`	No	Target port.	80
`target`	Yes	Host or URL to scan.

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?

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention that Nikto is a network vulnerability scanner, potential intrusiveness, or any side effects. Minimal disclosure.

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 sentence, efficient and front-loaded. However, it could include slightly more detail without becoming verbose.

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 complexity of a vulnerability scanner and absence of output schema or annotations, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on output, authentication, or risk.

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 the schema already explains each parameter. The description adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema, warranting baseline score.

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 scans a web server for vulnerabilities and misconfigurations. It uses a specific verb and resource, but does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like run_nmap or run_gobuster.

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. Given many siblings are scanning tools, explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use would help.

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