PentestMCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

check_module

Check available exploit modules for netexec protocols like RDP, LDAP, SMB, and SSH to select appropriate modules for penetration testing before execution.

Instructions

Call this before before using a module to check available exploit modules for a certain netexec supported protocol {rdp,ldap,winrm,smb,ssh,nfs,ftp,wmi,mssql,vnc} and based on the description of the modules chose one to perform

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": {
      "prot": "<prot>"
    },
    "name": "check_module"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`prot`	Yes

Implementation Reference

src/pentestmcp/server.py:321-322 (handler)
The handler function for the 'check_module' tool. It takes a protocol string and runs the 'netexec <prot> -L' command using the run_command helper to list available modules.
```
def check_module(prot:str):
    return run_command(["netexec",prot,'-L'])
```

src/pentestmcp/server.py:320-320 (registration)

Registers the 'check_module' tool with the MCP server using the @mcp.tool decorator, specifying the name and description.

@mcp.tool(name="check_module",description="Call this before before using a module to check available exploit modules for a certain netexec supported protocol {rdp,ldap,winrm,smb,ssh,nfs,ftp,wmi,mssql,vnc} and based on the description of the modules chose one to perform")

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Dec 28, 2025

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool checks modules and allows choosing one based on descriptions, but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify what information is returned (e.g., list format, module IDs), whether it's read-only or has side effects, or any rate limits/authentication requirements. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 run-on sentence with a typo ('before before') and could be more structured. While it conveys key information, it's not optimally front-loaded or polished. It earns a baseline score for being brief but loses points for lack of clarity in presentation.

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 (involves checking exploit modules for security protocols), no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of modules with descriptions), how to interpret results, or any prerequisites (e.g., network access). This makes it inadequate for an agent to use the tool effectively without additional context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds some meaning by listing example protocol values (e.g., rdp, ldap) and indicating the parameter specifies the protocol to check. However, it doesn't fully document the parameter's semantics—it doesn't clarify if the list is exhaustive, if case matters, or if other protocols are supported, leaving the agent with incomplete guidance.

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's purpose: to check available exploit modules for specific netexec protocols before using a module. It specifies the verb ('check'), resource ('available exploit modules'), and scope ('for a certain netexec supported protocol'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'use_module' or 'check_options', which prevents a perfect score.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides implied usage guidance by stating 'Call this before before using a module,' suggesting it's a prerequisite step. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or name alternatives (e.g., 'use_module' for direct module execution or 'check_options' for other checks), leaving some ambiguity in tool selection.

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