Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
PenTest MCP

PenTest MCP

by anishxagrawal
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

gobuster

Brute-force directories, files, DNS subdomains, and virtual hosts to discover hidden web resources during security assessments.

Instructions

Directory/file brute forcing

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": "gobuster"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYes
modeNodir
dry_runNoPreview commands/steps without executing the scan
session_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv3.0.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only implies that the tool performs brute forcing (which involves many requests), but does not mention safety, resource usage, permissions, or side effects. Minimal transparency.

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 concise at four words, but it is too terse to be informative. While brevity is valued, it sacrifices necessary detail for a multi-mode tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

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

The description is severely incomplete for a tool with multiple modes (dir, dns, vhost) and no output schema. It fails to mention modes, requirements, or return values, leaving critical gaps.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is low (25%), and the description adds no meaning to parameters. It does not explain 'url', 'mode', 'session_id', or their roles beyond the schema, which itself lacks descriptions for most parameters.

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 'brute forcing' and resource 'directory/file', indicating the tool's purpose. However, it does not differentiate it from sibling tools like ffuf or wfuzz, which also perform similar brute-forcing tasks.

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 gobuster versus alternatives. It lacks context on prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision-making support.

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