Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MCP-Connect — Kali Agent MCP v2

MCP-Connect — Kali Agent MCP v2

by asarlashmit
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

artifact_create_text

Create a text artifact with given content and optional filename for storing text data from operations.

Instructions

Kali Agent MCP tool: artifact_create_text

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": {
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "artifact_create_text"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoartifact.txt
contentYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.1.0

TDQS

D1.1/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

Without annotations, the description must disclose behavior such as side effects (e.g., file creation, overwriting) or output format. It provides none, leaving the agent to guess.

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?

The description is extremely short but fails to be informative. It is concise in length but not in value, earning a low score because it omits essential content.

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 output schema exists, the description could be brief, but it still needs to convey the tool's primary action. It does not, making the description incomplete for effective agent use.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It does not mention that 'content' is the text to store or that 'name' defaults to 'artifact.txt'. The agent has no parameter guidance.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose1/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description simply repeats the tool name without stating its purpose. It does not specify that the tool creates a text artifact, leaving the agent with no actionable understanding.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines1/5

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 any of the many sibling tools (e.g., write_file, artifact_register). The agent receives no context for decision-making.

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