HackTricks MCP Server

by Xplo8E

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

JavaScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.3.4
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool serves a distinct purpose: extracting code blocks, outlines, sections, full pages, quick lookups, category browsing, and search. No overlap in functionality.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., get_hacktricks_section, search_hacktricks). The compound name hacktricks_quick_lookup deviates slightly but is still action-oriented and clear.
Tool Count5/5
Seven tools is well-scoped for a specialized reference server, covering all needed operations without being excessive or insufficient.
Completeness5/5
The tool set covers the full workflow: search, browse categories, get structure, get specific section, get code blocks, and full page retrieval. No obvious missing operations for a read-only reference.
Average 4.5/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is failing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that it extracts all code blocks, skips explanatory text, and returns code with language tags. This is a read-only, non-destructive operation, and the description appropriately sets expectations about output format and content filtering. It does not mention error handling or prerequisites, but for a simple extraction tool, the transparency is sufficient.
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 extremely concise: two sentences that first state the primary action, then provide usage examples, then specify return format. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (single parameter, no output schema), the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, when to use it, what it returns. The sibling tools are differentiated, and the usage guidance is practical. No gaps remain.
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?
The only parameter 'path' has a schema description 'Path from search results'. The description does not add further details about format or constraints. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no additional value beyond the schema for parameter understanding.
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 that the tool extracts all code blocks from a page, skipping explanatory text. It gives specific examples of user intents ('give me the exploit command', 'show me the payload') that align with this tool, and effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_hacktricks_page or get_hacktricks_section, which retrieve full pages or sections.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage scenarios ('Perfect for: ...'), making it clear when to use this tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the positive examples are strong. The sibling tool names imply that for full prose or outlines, other tools should be used, but that is not spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It discloses expense (3000-15000 tokens), a key behavioral trait. Could add more on auth or errors, but the cost warning is valuable.
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?
Three sentences: purpose, warning, guidance. Front-loaded and no unnecessary information. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Lacks description of return format (no output schema), but given simplicity of tool (one param) and clear purpose, it is mostly complete. Could add return type info.
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%, baseline 3. Description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema's 'path' description. No examples or formatting details provided.
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 gets FULL page content, distinguishing it from siblings that return sections or cheatsheets. The verb 'Get' and resource 'page content' is specific.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly advises when to use (need complete page or multiple sections) and when to prefer alternatives (get_hacktricks_section, get_hacktricks_cheatsheet). Also warns about cost, guiding appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It transparently explains behavior for both with and without parameters. No side effects are expected, and the read-only nature is implied. Could mention return format but not essential.
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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a three-point list. Every sentence earns its place, with the most important information front-loaded. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It covers both invocation modes and usage context. A minor gap is the lack of return format, but the tool is exploratory so it's acceptable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and includes popular values. The description adds value by explaining the parameter's effect (listing pages) and the dual behavior when omitted. This enhances understanding beyond the schema.
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 verb 'browse' and resource 'HackTricks structure', and distinguishes between two modes: listing all categories vs showing pages in a category. This differentiates it from sibling tools like get_hacktricks_page or search_hacktricks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit when-to-use scenarios in a bullet list (unsure category, explore, need file paths). It does not explicitly exclude use cases or mention alternatives, but the guidance is clear and actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses output size (~20-50 lines), that it shows structure, and token cost. It implies read-only behavior. While not exhaustive, it is sufficient for a simple outline tool.
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?
Three sentences, each serving a purpose: defining output, giving usage guidance, and providing cost context. No wasted words, front-loaded with most important info.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, output characteristics, usage workflow, and cost. No critical gaps.
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% with one parameter 'path' already described. The description adds no additional meaning or constraints beyond what the schema provides.
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?
Clearly states it gets the table of contents (all section headers) of a page. Distinguishes from siblings by specifying it is used after search and before get_hacktricks_section, and mentions token cost savings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says 'Use this FIRST after search' and provides two specific use cases: verify page relevance and find exact section names. Also compares token cost to full page, guiding when to use this tool over alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully covers the tool's behavior: it searches, finds the best page, and returns exploitation sections and top 5 code blocks. It also discloses alias handling, which is important for query flexibility.
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 concise, front-loaded with a clear tagline and purpose, followed by use cases and return format. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite no output schema, the description fully covers the return format (page title, exploitation sections, top 5 code blocks) and key behaviors like alias handling and one-shot lookup. It is complete for the tool's complexity.
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% and both parameters have detailed descriptions including examples and alias handling. The tool description does not add additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 one-shot exploitation lookup, combining search and retrieval of exploitation sections and code blocks. It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_hacktricks or get_hacktricks_page by specifying it returns exploitation content directly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly lists use cases like 'how do I exploit X', 'give me X payload', 'X attack technique'. It does not provide explicit when-not usage or alternatives, but the use cases are clear and contextually differentiate from siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes return format (grouped by file, with page title, match count, etc.) and gives practical advice on limit parameter. Does not mention auth, rate limits, or destructive actions, which is acceptable for a search tool.
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?
Three well-structured sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with purpose, then return format, then workflow suggestion. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite no output schema, the description fully explains return format and gives usage context. It covers purpose, parameter advice, and workflow. Sufficient for an agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions. The description adds value by noting query supports regex, providing common category examples, and advising on limit values (lower=faster, set to 5 for quick lookups). Adds moderate context beyond schema.
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 searches HackTricks for pentesting techniques and returns results grouped by file with specific fields. It distinguishes from siblings by providing a workflow (search → get_hacktricks_outline → get_hacktricks_section) and recommending category filtering.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicit workflow guidance and recommendation to always use category filter to save tokens. No direct comparison to other sibling tools but context signals show alternatives; the description indirectly suggests this as the starting point.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses token range (~200-500 vs 3000+ for full page), implying safe read-only behavior. Lacks explicit mention of idempotency or auth, but given context, sufficiently transparent.
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?
Four sentences, front-loaded with key purpose, no redundant information. Every sentence adds value (purpose, efficiency claim, typical sections, prerequisite, comparative token count).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 2 simple parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, parameter hints, and expected output size. Referencing sibling tool (get_hacktricks_outline) completes the workflow guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by noting partial match and case-insensitivity for section, and enumerates common section names, going beyond schema.
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 'Extract ONE SECTION from a page' and positions it as the 'MOST EFFICIENT way to read content'. It distinguishes itself from siblings by offering targeted extraction rather than full page retrieval.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly recommends using get_hacktricks_outline first to find exact section names, and lists common section names. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and directs the agent to a prerequisite step.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![hacktricks-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Xplo8E/hacktricks-mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Xplo8E/hacktricks-mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![hacktricks-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Xplo8E/hacktricks-mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Xplo8E/hacktricks-mcp-server)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Xplo8E/hacktricks-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server