Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
PenTest MCP

PenTest MCP

by anishxagrawal
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

nmap

Scan target hosts to discover open ports and detect running services, enabling identification of exposed network services during penetration testing.

Instructions

Port scanning and service detection

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": {
      "host": "<host>",
      "session_id": "<session_id>"
    },
    "name": "nmap"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hostYes
portsNo
consentNo
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?

The description does not disclose behavioral traits such as network impact, required permissions, or legal considerations. The consent parameter in the schema hints at a requirement, but the description fails to address it. No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden.

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 extremely concise at one sentence. While this avoids verbosity, it sacrifices necessary detail. The structure is minimal but acceptable for a very brief description; however, it is insufficient for a tool with 5 parameters and no other documentation.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, many sibling tools, no annotations), the description is severely lacking. It does not explain return values, usage context, or tie to other tools. Completely inadequate for an agent to use effectively.

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 only 20% (only dry_run has a description). The tool description adds no information about the parameters host, ports, consent, or session_id. It does not compensate for the low coverage, leaving the agent to rely on schema field types alone.

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 'Port scanning and service detection' clearly states the tool's primary function. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like masscan or extensive_scan, which may also perform port scanning. The purpose is specific but lacks 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?

No usage guidelines are provided. There is no indication of when to use nmap vs alternative scanning tools, no prerequisites or restrictions mentioned. The agent receives no guidance on appropriate contexts.

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