Integrates with Kali Linux security tools through Metasploit Framework, enabling penetration testing operations like exploit searches, network scanning, and vulnerability assessment management.
Provides tools for interacting with Metasploit Framework, including searching exploits and auxiliary modules, retrieving exploit details and payloads, managing database workspaces, viewing hosts and services, and running nmap scans with automatic result import.
Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@Kali Metasploit MCP Server search for exploits related to windows smb"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
MCP (Model Context Protocol) server for interacting with Metasploit Framework on Kali Linux and other security-focused distributions.
This tool is for authorized security testing only. Use responsibly and legally.
Only use on systems you own or have explicit written permission to test
Unauthorized access to computer systems is illegal
The authors are not responsible for misuse of this software
Related MCP server: MSFConsole MCP Server
This MCP server provides the following tools:
Exploit Search: Search for exploits in the Metasploit database
Auxiliary Module Search: Search for auxiliary modules (scanners, fuzzers, etc.)
Exploit Information: Get detailed information about specific exploits
Payload Listing: List available payloads for exploits
Database Management:
Check database status
List workspaces
View hosts and services
Network Scanning: Run nmap scans and automatically import results into Metasploit database
Kali Linux (or any Linux distribution with Metasploit Framework)
Node.js 18+ (or Node.js 20+ recommended)
Metasploit Framework installed and configured
nmap (optional, for network scanning features)
On Kali Linux:
sudo apt-get update
sudo apt-get install metasploit-frameworkOn other Debian-based systems:
curl https://raw.githubusercontent.com/rapid7/metasploit-omnibus/master/config/templates/metasploit-framework-wrappers/msfupdate.erb | sudo bashsudo apt-get install nmapClone or download this repository:
git clone https://github.com/andreransom58-coder/kali-metasploit-mcp.git
cd kali-metasploit-mcpInstall dependencies:
npm installBuild the project:
npm run buildRun the server directly:
npm startOr in development mode:
npm run devAdd to your Claude Desktop configuration file (located at ~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json on macOS or %APPDATA%\Claude\claude_desktop_config.json on Windows):
{
"mcpServers": {
"kali-metasploit": {
"command": "node",
"args": ["/absolute/path/to/kali-metasploit-mcp/dist/index.js"]
}
}
}Add to your Cursor settings (.cursor-settings or workspace settings):
{
"mcp": {
"servers": {
"kali-metasploit": {
"command": "node",
"args": ["/absolute/path/to/kali-metasploit-mcp/dist/index.js"]
}
}
}
}search_exploitsSearch for exploits in Metasploit database.
Parameters:
query (required): Search query (e.g., "windows smb", "apache", "CVE-2021-44228")
platform (optional): Filter by platform (windows, linux, etc.)
Example:
search_exploits({
query: "windows smb",
platform: "windows"
})search_auxiliarySearch for auxiliary modules.
Parameters:
query (required): Search query
type (optional): Filter by type (scanner, admin, dos, fuzzers, gather)
get_exploit_infoGet detailed information about a specific exploit.
Parameters:
exploitPath (required): Full exploit path (e.g., "exploit/windows/smb/ms17_010_eternalblue")
get_payloadsList available payloads for an exploit.
Parameters:
exploitPath (required): Full exploit path
db_statusCheck Metasploit database status.
db_workspacesList all Metasploit workspaces.
db_hostsList all hosts in the current workspace.
Parameters:
workspace (optional): Workspace name to query
db_servicesList all services in the current workspace.
Parameters:
host (optional): Filter by host IP address
nmap_scanRun an nmap scan and import results into Metasploit database.
Parameters:
target (required): Target IP address or CIDR range
ports (optional): Port range or specific ports (e.g., "80,443" or "1-1000")
scanType (optional): Type of scan (quick, stealth, full, udp)
Example:
nmap_scan({
target: "192.168.1.0/24",
ports: "80,443,8080",
scanType: "stealth"
})npm run buildnpm run watchnpm run devIf you get an error that msfconsole is not found:
Ensure Metasploit Framework is installed
Check that msfconsole is in your PATH
Try running which msfconsole (or where msfconsole on Windows) to verify
If database operations fail:
Initialize the database: msfdb init
Start the database: msfdb start
Verify: msfconsole -q -x "db_status; exit"
Some operations may require root privileges:
Network scanning may require elevated privileges
Ensure proper permissions for database access
Contributions are welcome! Please feel free to submit a Pull Request.
Fork the repository
Create your feature branch (git checkout -b feature/amazing-feature)
Commit your changes (git commit -m 'Add some amazing feature')
Push to the branch (git push origin feature/amazing-feature)
Open a Pull Request
This project is licensed under the MIT License - see the LICENSE file for details.
This software is provided for educational and authorized testing purposes only. The authors and contributors are not responsible for any misuse or damage caused by this software. Always ensure you have proper authorization before testing any systems.
Metasploit Framework by Rapid7
Model Context Protocol by Anthropic
Kali Linux community
List all hosts in the current workspace
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| workspace | No | Optional: workspace name to query |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a list operation, implying it's read-only and non-destructive, but doesn't mention any constraints like permissions, rate limits, or what 'hosts' entails (e.g., IP addresses, names). It adds little beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (1 optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action but lacks details on usage context, behavioral traits, or output format, leaving gaps that could hinder an agent's understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single optional 'workspace' parameter. The description adds minimal value by implying a default 'current workspace', but doesn't clarify semantics like format or precedence. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does most of the work.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List all hosts') and resource ('in the current workspace'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'db_services' or 'db_workspaces' that might also list workspace-related data, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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 like 'db_services' or 'nmap_scan'. It mentions 'current workspace' but doesn't explain if this is the default or how it relates to the optional workspace parameter, offering minimal context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List all services in the current workspace
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host | No | Optional: filter by host IP address |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states a read operation ('List'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't cover aspects like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'current workspace' entails. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core action ('List all services') and specifies the scope ('in the current workspace'), making it efficient and easy to parse. Every part of the description earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, or output format. For a simple list tool, this is acceptable but leaves room for improvement in guiding the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with one optional parameter ('host') clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter details beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or usage context for the filter. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('services in the current workspace'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'db_hosts' or 'db_workspaces', which prevents a perfect score, but the specificity of 'services' versus 'hosts' or 'workspaces' provides inherent distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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. It doesn't mention siblings like 'db_hosts' for listing hosts or 'db_workspaces' for workspace info, nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for usage. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Check Metasploit database status
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
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 states the action ('Check') but doesn't explain what the check entails (e.g., connectivity, health, version), what permissions are needed, or what the output might look like. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond a basic read operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundant information. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details on what 'status' means (e.g., operational state, data integrity) and behavioral context, which could be important for a database tool in a security context like Metasploit. With no annotations, more completeness would be beneficial.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately avoids unnecessary details, earning a high score for not overcomplicating a parameterless tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('Metasploit database status'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from potential sibling tools that might also check database aspects, like workspace status or connectivity, 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.
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, such as other database-related tools in the sibling list (e.g., db_hosts, db_workspaces). It lacks context about prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List all Metasploit workspaces
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't mention potential side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what the output format looks like. This leaves significant gaps for a tool interacting with a security database.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list tool and front-loads the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of database operations and lack of both annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a 'workspace' entails in Metasploit context, how results are returned, or any behavioral constraints, making it incomplete for safe and effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, earning a baseline score of 4 for this dimension.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('all Metasploit workspaces'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'db_hosts' or 'db_services' which also list database entities, but the specific resource type is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, timing considerations, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'db_status' or 'nmap_scan', leaving the agent to infer usage context independently.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get detailed information about a specific exploit
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| exploitPath | Yes | Full exploit path (e.g., 'exploit/windows/smb/ms17_010_eternalblue') |
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 states it 'gets detailed information,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format might be. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with exploit data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand at a glance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of exploit information retrieval, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like error handling, output structure, or dependencies, leaving the agent with insufficient context for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'exploitPath' parameter well-documented. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the format further or providing examples beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific exploit'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_exploits' or 'search_auxiliary', which might have overlapping functionality, preventing 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.
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 like 'search_exploits' or 'db_workspaces'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing an exploit path, and doesn't mention any exclusions or specific scenarios for its use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List available payloads for a specific exploit
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| exploitPath | Yes | Full exploit path |
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 states the tool lists payloads but doesn't describe what 'list' entails (e.g., format, pagination, or any side effects like authentication needs or rate limits). This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to grasp quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns a list of payloads. It doesn't explain what the output looks like, any potential errors, or behavioral traits, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents the 'exploitPath' parameter fully. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as examples or constraints, resulting in a baseline score of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('payloads for a specific exploit'), making it easy to understand what it does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_exploits' or 'get_exploit_info', which might handle related but different functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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 like 'search_exploits' or 'get_exploit_info', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It implies usage for listing payloads but lacks context about when this is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Run an nmap scan and import results into Metasploit database
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target | Yes | Target IP address or CIDR range | |
| ports | No | Optional: port range or specific ports (e.g., '80,443' or '1-1000') | |
| scanType | No | Optional: type of scan to perform | quick |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions running a scan and importing results, but lacks details on behavioral traits like permissions needed, whether it's destructive (e.g., modifies the database), rate limits, or error handling. This is a significant gap for a tool with potential security implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized, making it easy to understand quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a network scanning tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not cover important aspects like what the scan results include, how they are imported into the database, or any prerequisites, leaving gaps for effective agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
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 parameters (target, ports, scanType) with descriptions and defaults. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining scan types in more detail or providing examples, resulting in a baseline score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Run an nmap scan') and the outcome ('import results into Metasploit database'), which is specific and actionable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'db_hosts' or 'db_services', which might handle database queries rather than scans, so it lacks sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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. For example, it does not mention when to choose this over other scanning tools or database tools in the sibling list, such as 'search_exploits' or 'db_status', leaving usage context implied at best.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Search for auxiliary modules in Metasploit
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Search query for auxiliary modules | |
| type | No | Optional: Filter by auxiliary type |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('search') but doesn't describe what the search returns (e.g., list of modules, details), any limitations (e.g., pagination, rate limits), or authentication needs. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with potential security implications.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for its purpose, making it easy to parse without unnecessary details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of searching in a security tool like Metasploit, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error handling, or behavioral traits, which are crucial for effective tool use in this context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
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 both parameters ('query' and 'type') thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the tool searches auxiliary modules, which aligns with the schema but doesn't provide extra context like search syntax or type usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('search') and resource ('auxiliary modules in Metasploit'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_exploits' or 'get_exploit_info', which would require a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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 like 'search_exploits' or other siblings. It lacks context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent with minimal direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Search for exploits in Metasploit database
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Search query (e.g., 'windows smb', 'apache', 'CVE-2021-44228') | |
| platform | No | Optional: Filter by platform (windows, linux, etc.) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It mentions searching a database but doesn't describe what constitutes an 'exploit' in this context, how results are returned (e.g., format, pagination), authentication requirements, or rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely returns security-sensitive data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple search tool and front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of security tools and the absence of both annotations and an output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what an 'exploit' entails in this database, the format or scope of results, or any behavioral constraints. For a tool with potential security implications, this leaves too many unanswered questions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
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 both parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain how 'query' interacts with 'platform' or provide search syntax examples). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Search for exploits') and target resource ('Metasploit database'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_auxiliary' or 'get_exploit_info', 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.
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 like 'search_auxiliary' or 'get_exploit_info'. It lacks any context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, offering only a basic functional statement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose targeting specific Metasploit functions: database queries (db_hosts, db_services, db_status, db_workspaces), module information retrieval (get_exploit_info, get_payloads), scanning (nmap_scan), and searching (search_auxiliary, search_exploits). No overlap exists that would cause confusion.
The naming shows mixed conventions: db_* tools follow a consistent pattern, but others use different styles like get_*, nmap_*, and search_*. While readable, the lack of a unified pattern across all tools reduces consistency.
With 9 tools, the count is well-scoped for a Metasploit server, covering core database management, scanning, and module exploration. Each tool earns its place without feeling excessive or insufficient.
The toolset provides strong coverage for Metasploit's key workflows: database status/query, scanning, and module search/info. Minor gaps exist, such as lacking tools for executing exploits or managing sessions, but agents can still perform essential reconnaissance and planning tasks.
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
Offline methodology engine for authorized penetration testing, CTF, and security research.
MCP server for Pentest-Tools.com: run scans, manage findings and reports via your preffered LLM.
MEOK MCP Hardening MCP — automated security red-team for any MCP server. Maps OWASP LLM Top 10
AI pentesting: run scans, triage vulnerabilities, review PRs, manage schedules and assets.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/andreransom58-coder/kali-metasploit-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server
