Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
PenTest MCP

PenTest MCP

by anishxagrawal
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

git_dumper

Dump an exposed .git directory from a target URL to retrieve source code, configuration, and other sensitive files during penetration testing.

Instructions

Exposed .git directory dumper

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": {
      "url": "<url>",
      "session_id": "<session_id>"
    },
    "name": "git_dumper"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYes
dry_runNoPreview commands/steps without executing the scan
session_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv3.0.0

TDQS

C2.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations and a terse description, the tool's behavior is unclear—it does not disclose whether it only checks existence, downloads files, or performs other actions. No mention of prerequisites, side effects, or limitations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

While extremely concise, the description is under-specified, requiring more detail to be useful. It does not earn its brevity; essential information about function, parameters, and behavior is missing.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fails to provide adequate context. It is insufficient for an agent to understand how to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is low (33%), with the 'url' and 'session_id' parameters lacking descriptions. The tool description does not explain these parameters or add meaning beyond the schema, leaving critical usage details ambiguous.

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 'Exposed .git directory dumper' clearly identifies the tool as targeting exposed .git directories, distinguishing it from sibling tools focused on other scans. However, it lacks specificity on the exact action (e.g., dumps contents, checks for exposure, downloads files).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among many sibling scanning tools, there is no indication of the specific scenario (exposed .git repos) or when not to use it.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools