Skip to main content
Glama

exploit_attempt

Execute controlled exploitation attempts against identified vulnerabilities to validate security weaknesses during authorized penetration testing.

Instructions

Attempt exploitation using detected vulnerabilities

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
targetYesTarget IP/URL
vulnerabilityYesVulnerability identifier
payloadNoPayload type

Implementation Reference

  • Core handler function implementing exploit_attempt tool logic. Categorizes vulnerability and delegates to specific exploit methods (SQLi, XSS, directory traversal, etc.). Returns structured ScanResult with attempt details.
    async exploitAttempt(target: string, vulnerability: string, payload?: string): Promise<ScanResult> {
      try {
        const exploitResults: ExploitResult[] = [];
        
        // Determine exploit strategy based on vulnerability type
        const vulnType = this.categorizeVulnerability(vulnerability);
        
        switch (vulnType) {
          case 'web':
            await this.attemptWebExploits(target, vulnerability, payload, exploitResults);
            break;
          case 'network':
            await this.attemptNetworkExploits(target, vulnerability, payload, exploitResults);
            break;
          case 'service':
            await this.attemptServiceExploits(target, vulnerability, payload, exploitResults);
            break;
          default:
            await this.attemptGenericExploits(target, vulnerability, payload, exploitResults);
        }
        
        return {
          target,
          timestamp: new Date().toISOString(),
          tool: 'exploit_attempt',
          results: {
            exploit_attempts: exploitResults,
            successful_exploits: exploitResults.filter(e => e.success),
            vulnerability_targeted: vulnerability,
            total_attempts: exploitResults.length
          },
          status: 'success'
        };
      } catch (error) {
        return {
          target,
          timestamp: new Date().toISOString(),
          tool: 'exploit_attempt',
          results: {},
          status: 'error',
          error: error instanceof Error ? error.message : String(error)
        };
      }
    }
  • MCP tool schema definition specifying input parameters and requirements for exploit_attempt.
    {
      name: "exploit_attempt",
      description: "Attempt exploitation using detected vulnerabilities",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          target: { type: "string", description: "Target IP/URL" },
          vulnerability: { type: "string", description: "Vulnerability identifier" },
          payload: { type: "string", description: "Payload type" }
        },
        required: ["target", "vulnerability"]
      }
    },
  • src/index.ts:531-533 (registration)
    MCP server registration: dispatches exploit_attempt calls to ExploitTools.exploitAttempt method.
    case "exploit_attempt":
      return respond(await this.exploitTools.exploitAttempt(args.target, args.vulnerability, args.payload));
  • Input validation helper specifically for exploit_attempt tool, ensuring valid target and required vulnerability parameter.
        case 'exploit_attempt':
          this.validateExploitArgs(args);
          break;
        // Add more tool-specific validations as needed
      }
    }
    
    private validateNmapArgs(args: any): void {
      if (args.target) {
        const validation = this.targetValidator.validateTarget(args.target);
        if (!validation.isValid) {
          throw new ValidationError(`Invalid nmap target: ${validation.error}`, 'INVALID_NMAP_TARGET');
        }
      }
    
      const allowedScanTypes = ['quick', 'full', 'stealth', 'aggressive'];
      if (args.scan_type && !allowedScanTypes.includes(args.scan_type)) {
        throw new ValidationError('Invalid scan type', 'INVALID_SCAN_TYPE');
      }
    }
    
    private validateNucleiArgs(args: any): void {
      if (args.target) {
        const validation = this.targetValidator.validateTarget(args.target);
        if (!validation.isValid) {
          throw new ValidationError(`Invalid nuclei target: ${validation.error}`, 'INVALID_NUCLEI_TARGET');
        }
      }
    
      const allowedSeverities = ['info', 'low', 'medium', 'high', 'critical'];
      if (args.severity && !allowedSeverities.includes(args.severity)) {
        throw new ValidationError('Invalid severity level', 'INVALID_SEVERITY');
      }
    }
    
    private validateExploitArgs(args: any): void {
      if (args.target) {
        const validation = this.targetValidator.validateTarget(args.target);
        if (!validation.isValid) {
          throw new ValidationError(`Invalid exploit target: ${validation.error}`, 'INVALID_EXPLOIT_TARGET');
        }
      }
    
      // Additional checks for exploitation attempts
      if (!args.vulnerability) {
        throw new ValidationError('Vulnerability identifier required for exploitation', 'MISSING_VULNERABILITY');
      }
    
      // Log exploitation attempts for audit purposes
      console.log(`AUDIT: Exploitation attempt - Target: ${args.target}, Vulnerability: ${args.vulnerability}`);
    }
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Attempt exploitation' implies a potentially destructive/mutative operation, but the description doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this requires specific permissions, what happens on success/failure, if it's reversible, rate limits, or safety considerations. For a tool with 'exploit' in its name and no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with three parameters and no annotations, though it could be more specific about the exploitation context to improve clarity without sacrificing conciseness.

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?

For a tool named 'exploit_attempt' with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'attempt' means operationally, what constitutes success/failure, what the tool actually does during exploitation, or what the expected outcomes are. Given the potentially destructive nature implied by the name and the lack of structured safety information, the description should provide more behavioral 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 the schema already documents all three parameters (target, vulnerability, payload) with basic descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain what constitutes a valid vulnerability identifier, payload types available, or target format expectations. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Attempt exploitation using detected vulnerabilities' clearly states the action (attempt exploitation) and the resource (detected vulnerabilities), but it's somewhat vague about what specific exploitation means. It distinguishes from many siblings that focus on scanning, discovery, or testing rather than active exploitation, but doesn't specify what type of exploitation or against what targets beyond the generic 'vulnerabilities'.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'auto_pentest', 'burp_active_scan', 'sqlmap_scan', and various testing tools, there's no indication of when exploitation is preferred over scanning, testing, or automated pentesting approaches. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

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/adriyansyah-mf/mcp-pentest'

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