Skip to main content
Glama

db_services

List and filter database services in the Metasploit workspace to identify network services for penetration testing and security assessment.

Instructions

List all services in the current workspace

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hostNoOptional: filter by host IP address

Implementation Reference

  • src/index.ts:166-178 (registration)
    Registration of the 'db_services' tool, including name, description, and input schema (optional host filter).
    {
      name: "db_services",
      description: "List all services in the current workspace",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          host: {
            type: "string",
            description: "Optional: filter by host IP address",
          },
        },
      },
    },
  • Input schema for db_services tool: optional 'host' string parameter to filter services by IP.
    inputSchema: {
      type: "object",
      properties: {
        host: {
          type: "string",
          description: "Optional: filter by host IP address",
        },
      },
    },
  • Handler implementation for 'db_services': runs 'services' or 'services -R <host>' via msfconsole and returns JSON results.
    case "db_services": {
      const { host } = args as { host?: string };
      const commands = host 
        ? [`services -R ${host}`]
        : [`services`];
    
      try {
        const services = await executeMsfCommand(commands);
        return {
          content: [
            {
              type: "text",
              text: JSON.stringify(
                {
                  success: true,
                  host: host || "all",
                  services,
                },
                null,
                2
              ),
            },
          ],
        };
      } catch (error: any) {
        return {
          content: [
            {
              type: "text",
              text: JSON.stringify({
                success: false,
                error: error.message,
              }),
            },
          ],
        };
      }
    }
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 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.

Conciseness5/5

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.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's low complexity (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.

Parameters3/5

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.

Purpose4/5

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.

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. 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.

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/andreransom58-coder/kali-metasploit-mcp'

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