Kali MCP Server

by azza39925

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no ambiguity. The tools are organized into categories (exploit, network, password, web) and target specific resources or actions, such as kali_network_nmap_discover for host discovery versus kali_network_nmap_scan for port scanning. There is no overlap in functionality, making it easy for an agent to select the correct tool.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with a uniform prefix structure (kali_category_tool_action). For example, kali_exploit_searchsploit_search and kali_web_gobuster_dir adhere to the same naming convention throughout. There are no deviations or mixed styles, ensuring predictability and readability.
Tool Count5/5
With 19 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose of providing security testing and penetration testing utilities. Each tool earns its place by covering distinct aspects like network scanning, password cracking, and web vulnerability assessment. The count is appropriate for the domain, avoiding both thin coverage and overwhelming complexity.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface is complete with comprehensive coverage of the security testing domain. It includes tools for exploitation, network reconnaissance, password attacks, and web application scanning, with no obvious gaps. Each category has multiple tools that support full workflows, such as discovery, scanning, and exploitation, ensuring agents can handle typical tasks without dead ends.
Average 3.4/5 across 19 of 19 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Examine and display the contents' but lacks details on output format (e.g., text, code), potential side effects (e.g., if it runs or just views exploit code), permissions needed, or error handling, which are critical for a tool interacting with exploit data.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for its purpose, though it could be slightly more front-loaded with key details like output type to enhance clarity.
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 the complexity of handling exploits, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'display the contents' entails (e.g., code preview, metadata), potential risks, or how results are formatted, leaving significant gaps for safe and effective tool use.
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, clearly documenting both parameters ('exploit_id' and 'color'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of exploit IDs or color output effects, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without extra value.
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 action ('Examine and display the contents') and resource ('an exploit from searchsploit results'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'kali_exploit_searchsploit_search', which might search for exploits rather than examine specific ones, leaving some ambiguity in sibling 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 prerequisites (e.g., needing searchsploit results first), exclusions, or comparisons with sibling tools like 'kali_exploit_searchsploit_search', leaving the agent without contextual usage cues.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'capture and analysis' and 'advanced filtering' but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this requires elevated privileges, what happens during capture (e.g., network disruption), output characteristics, error conditions, or rate limits. For a network capture tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core functionality. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, though it could be more front-loaded with critical behavioral information given the lack of annotations.
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?
For a network packet capture tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address security implications, privilege requirements, output structure, or error handling. The description provides basic purpose but lacks the contextual depth needed for safe and effective use of this potentially privileged network tool.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond what's in the schema - it mentions 'advanced filtering' which relates to the 'filter' parameter and 'multiple output formats' which relates to 'output_format', but provides no additional syntax, format details, or usage examples beyond the schema descriptions.
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 tool's purpose as 'packet capture and analysis' using Wireshark CLI, specifying the core action and resource. It distinguishes from some siblings by focusing on packet analysis rather than scanning or exploitation, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the similar 'kali_network_tcpdump_capture' tool.
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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions 'advanced filtering and multiple output formats' which implies capabilities, but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or compare it to the similar tcpdump_capture sibling tool. Usage context is only implied by the tool name and description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions GPU acceleration and hash type support, but lacks critical details such as required permissions, whether it's destructive (likely yes for password cracking), performance characteristics, error handling, or output format. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two sentences that efficiently convey key features. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and avoids unnecessary details, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly stating the tool's action (cracking).
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 the complexity of a password cracking tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It misses behavioral context (e.g., destructive nature, resource usage), usage guidelines relative to siblings, and output expectations, making it inadequate for an agent to fully understand the tool's operation.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain relationships between parameters like attack_type and wordlist/mask). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 tool's purpose as 'Advanced password recovery tool using GPU acceleration' with the specific action 'crack' implied in the name. It distinguishes from some siblings (e.g., kali_password_hydra_brute focuses on brute-force attacks, kali_password_john_crack is another cracker) by mentioning GPU acceleration and 300+ hash type support, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all password-related siblings.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like kali_password_hydra_brute or kali_password_john_crack is provided. The description mentions general features (GPU acceleration, hash types) but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions for choosing this tool over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'password cracker' which implies a resource-intensive, potentially long-running operation, but doesn't disclose critical traits like performance expectations, output format, error handling, or system impact. The mention of 'attack modes' is vague without elaboration.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without waste. It's appropriately sized for a tool with good schema documentation, though it could be slightly more front-loaded with key behavioral context.
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?
For a password cracking tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (cracked passwords? success/failure?), doesn't warn about resource usage or ethical considerations, and provides minimal behavioral context despite the tool's complexity.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 tool's purpose: 'John the Ripper password cracker' specifies the verb (crack) and resource (passwords), and 'supporting many hash formats and attack modes' adds useful context. It distinguishes from siblings like 'kali_password_hashcat_crack' by naming a specific tool (John the Ripper), but doesn't explicitly contrast their differences.
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 like 'kali_password_hashcat_crack' or 'kali_password_hydra_brute'. The description mentions 'many hash formats and attack modes' which implies versatility, but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'DNS brute-forcing with wordlists,' which implies aggressive scanning behavior, but doesn't disclose potential impacts like network noise, rate limiting risks, legal considerations, or typical output format. For a security tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational 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, efficient sentence: 'Enumerate subdomains using DNS brute-forcing with wordlists.' It's front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero redundant information, and every word earns its place by specifying the action, target, and method concisely.
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 the tool's complexity (a security scanning tool with 5 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral traits like potential destructiveness, authorization needs, or output format, which are critical for a brute-forcing tool. The description alone is insufficient for safe and effective use without additional context.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain how 'wordlist' selection affects results or what 'threads' optimization entails). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate with extra semantic context.
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 tool's purpose: 'Enumerate subdomains using DNS brute-forcing with wordlists.' It specifies the verb ('enumerate'), resource ('subdomains'), and method ('DNS brute-forcing with wordlists'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling tool 'kali_web_gobuster_dir', which appears to be a directory enumeration tool rather than DNS subdomain enumeration, so the distinction is implied but not stated.
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 sibling tools like 'kali_web_nikto_scan' or 'kali_web_nuclei_scan' for web scanning, or specify scenarios where DNS brute-forcing is preferred over other subdomain discovery methods. Usage is implied by the tool's name and description but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'comprehensive' scanning but lacks details on permissions required, potential impact (e.g., whether it's intrusive or safe for production), rate limits, output format, or error handling. For a security scanning tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads key information ('comprehensive web server scanner') without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the tool's scope, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.
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 the complexity of a security scanning tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., intrusiveness, permissions), output format, and differentiation from sibling tools, which are critical for an AI agent to use this tool effectively in a context with multiple scanning alternatives.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (target, port, ssl, tuning, timeout) with descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples for tuning options or context on default values. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 tool's purpose as a 'comprehensive web server scanner for vulnerabilities, misconfigurations, and security issues,' which specifies the verb (scan), resource (web server), and scope (vulnerabilities, misconfigurations, security issues). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling web scanning tools like kali_web_nuclei_scan or kali_web_wpscan_scan, which likely have overlapping purposes.
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. With multiple sibling tools for web scanning (e.g., kali_web_nuclei_scan, kali_web_sqlmap_test), there's no indication of specific contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions for using kali_web_nikto_scan, leaving the agent to infer usage based on tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'vulnerability scanner' which implies potentially intrusive/destructive actions, but doesn't warn about risks, permissions needed, rate limits, or output format. For a security scanning tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.
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, efficient sentence that communicates the core functionality without waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information about being a template-based vulnerability scanner.
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?
For a vulnerability scanning tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't address critical context like what the scan output looks like, whether it's passive vs active scanning, potential impact on targets, or error conditions. The combination of security tool complexity and lack of structured metadata requires more comprehensive description.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain parameter interactions, default behaviors beyond schema defaults, or practical usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
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 tool's purpose as a 'template-based vulnerability scanner' with 'extensive CVE coverage and custom templates support', which specifies the verb (scan), resource (vulnerabilities), and key capabilities. It distinguishes itself from siblings like nikto_scan or sqlmap_test by emphasizing template-based scanning and CVE coverage, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all web scanning tools.
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. With multiple web scanning siblings (nikto_scan, sqlmap_test, wpscan_scan, etc.), there's no indication of specific scenarios, target types, or comparative strengths/weaknesses that would help an agent choose appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'security scanner' and 'finding vulnerabilities,' which implies a read-only analysis, but it does not specify critical behaviors such as whether the scan is passive or active, potential impact on the target site (e.g., if it triggers alerts), rate limits, or authentication needs. For a tool with no annotations and potential security implications, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core function ('WordPress security scanner'), making it easy to parse. However, it could be slightly more structured by including key usage notes, but it avoids redundancy and waste, earning a high score for conciseness.
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 the complexity of a security scanning tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., scan intensity, output format), usage context, and how results are returned. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should provide more context to guide the agent effectively, but it falls short, making it inadequate for the tool's scope.
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, so parameters like 'url' and 'enumerate' are well-documented in the schema itself. The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain the significance of 'vp,vt,u' or typical use cases for parameters). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.
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 tool's purpose as a 'WordPress security scanner for finding vulnerabilities in WordPress sites, themes, and plugins.' It specifies the verb ('scanner for finding vulnerabilities') and resource ('WordPress sites, themes, and plugins'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'kali_web_nikto_scan' or 'kali_web_nuclei_scan', which may also perform web vulnerability scanning, so it lacks sibling differentiation for a perfect score.
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 does not mention any specific contexts, prerequisites (e.g., needing a WordPress site), or exclusions (e.g., not for non-WordPress sites). With many sibling tools for web scanning and exploitation, the absence of usage guidelines leaves the agent without clear direction, resulting in a low score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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. It mentions behavioral aspects like supporting BPF filters and saving to PCAP files, but lacks critical details: it doesn't state if this requires elevated privileges (e.g., root), whether it's destructive or read-only, potential performance impacts, or output format beyond file saving. For a network capture tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
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, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes only essential additional capabilities. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 complexity (network packet capture with 6 parameters) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the high-level purpose and key features but misses critical behavioral context (e.g., permissions, side effects). With no output schema, it also doesn't describe return values, leaving gaps for agent usage.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema—it mentions BPF filters and PCAP files, which relate to the 'filter' and 'output_file' parameters but don't provide additional semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 tool's purpose: 'Capture network packets for analysis.' It specifies the action (capture) and resource (network packets), and mentions key capabilities (BPF filters, PCAP file saving). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'kali_network_tshark_capture', which likely serves a similar packet capture function.
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 sibling tools like 'kali_network_tshark_capture' for comparison, nor does it specify prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions for usage. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'high-speed' and 'capable of scanning the entire internet in minutes', which hints at performance, and 'Use with caution and proper authorization' implies potential risks. However, it lacks details on output format, error handling, rate limits, or specific destructive impacts (e.g., network disruption), leaving significant gaps for a powerful scanning tool.
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 highly concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's capability and a critical warning. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 the tool's complexity (high-speed scanning with potential network impact), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It misses details on behavioral traits (e.g., what results look like, error cases), usage nuances compared to siblings, and fails to fully address risks beyond a generic caution, leaving the agent under-informed for safe and effective use.
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, providing clear details for all 5 parameters (target, ports, rate, banners, timeout). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting, but doesn't compensate with extra context.
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 tool's purpose as a 'high-speed port scanner' with the capability to 'scan the entire internet in minutes', which is specific and distinguishes it from general scanning tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'kali_network_nmap_scan' or 'kali_network_netdiscover_scan' beyond the high-speed aspect.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides implied usage guidance with 'Use with caution and proper authorization', which suggests ethical and legal considerations. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives (e.g., compared to nmap_scan for detailed analysis or netdiscover_scan for local network discovery), and no specific exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'active and passive modes' and that it's an 'ARP reconnaissance tool,' which gives some context about network scanning behavior. However, it lacks details on permissions needed, potential network impact, output format, or rate limits, which are critical for a network scanning tool with no structured safety hints.
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 extremely concise with two sentences that directly state the tool's function and key feature (modes). It's front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids any redundant or unnecessary information, making it efficient and easy to parse.
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 the complexity of a network scanning tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like output format, error handling, or security implications, which are essential for proper tool invocation. The high schema coverage helps with parameters, but overall context is lacking for safe and effective use.
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, so parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying the tool's mode (active/passive) relates to parameters, but it doesn't provide additional syntax, format, or usage details for the parameters. This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.
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 tool's purpose as an 'ARP reconnaissance tool for discovering hosts on a local network,' which specifies the verb (discovering), resource (hosts), and scope (local network). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'kali_network_nmap_discover' or 'kali_network_masscan_scan,' which likely have overlapping network discovery functions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by mentioning 'active and passive modes,' suggesting when to choose between them, but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like nmap or masscan for network scanning. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool's name and description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that SearchSploit is a 'command-line search tool,' which implies read-only behavior, but does not disclose critical traits like whether it requires authentication, rate limits, or what the output format looks like (e.g., list of exploits, details). This is inadequate for a search tool with no annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a clear purpose statement, bullet points for search options, and examples. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, though the example section could be more concise. Overall, it avoids unnecessary verbosity.
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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and parameter guidance but lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., output format, error handling) and usage distinctions from siblings. It is minimally viable for a search tool but has clear gaps in completeness.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds value by listing 'Search Options' that map to parameters (e.g., platform, type, cve) and providing examples, but does not explain parameter interactions or constraints beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search the Exploit Database for public exploits and vulnerability information.' It specifies the verb 'search' and the resource 'Exploit Database,' distinguishing it from siblings like kali_exploit_msfvenom_generate (generate exploits) and kali_exploit_searchsploit_examine (examine exploits).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage through the 'Search Options' section, listing scenarios like searching by software name, CVE, platform, or exploit type. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., kali_exploit_searchsploit_examine) or provide exclusions, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool generates payloads and includes a security warning, but does not detail behavioral traits like required permissions, rate limits, or what the output looks like. The example gives some context, but more operational details would be helpful.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with clear sections (warning, common payloads, example) and avoids unnecessary verbosity. Every sentence adds value, such as the security warning and practical examples, making it efficient and easy to scan.
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 complexity of a payload generation tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose, security context, and examples, but lacks details on output format, error handling, or integration with other tools, leaving some gaps for an AI 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by listing common payload examples and an example usage, but does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema specifies. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Generate custom payloads') and resources ('for Metasploit Framework'), distinguishing it from sibling tools focused on scanning, fuzzing, or cracking. It explicitly mentions msfvenom's role as a payload generator and encoder, making its function unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context with a warning for authorized use only, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any prerequisites. It lists common payloads and an example, which helps guide usage, but lacks direct comparison with sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: it's a 'fast directory/file brute-forcing tool' with 'multi-threaded scanning,' 'customizable file extensions,' 'status code filtering,' and 'recursive scanning support.' This covers performance, functionality, and operational characteristics, though it doesn't detail error handling or output format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a clear purpose statement, a features list, and examples. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first. However, the features section could be more concise, and some redundancy exists (e.g., repeating 'Gobuster is a fast...' after the initial enumeration statement).
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 complexity (8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is moderately complete. It covers the tool's purpose, features, and provides examples, but lacks details on output format, error conditions, or integration with other tools. For a brute-forcing tool with multiple parameters, more contextual guidance would be beneficial.
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, so the baseline score is 3. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema, only mentioning 'url' and 'extensions' in the example without providing additional context. It does not explain interactions between parameters or advanced usage scenarios.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose as 'Enumerate directories and files on web servers using wordlists,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like kali_web_gobuster_dns (DNS enumeration) and kali_web_ffuf_fuzz (fuzzing) by focusing on directory/file brute-forcing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides implied usage context through the 'Features' section (e.g., 'Fast multi-threaded scanning,' 'Status code filtering'), which suggests when this tool might be preferred. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like kali_web_nikto_scan or kali_web_sqlmap_test, and does not mention exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool performs 'exploitation' and 'data extraction,' implying destructive/mutative behavior, and includes a security warning about authorization. However, it lacks details on rate limits, error handling, output format, or what specific actions might be taken during exploitation (e.g., database modification). The features list adds some context but is high-level.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a clear purpose statement, warning, bullet-pointed features, and examples. It's front-loaded with critical information. However, the features list is somewhat redundant with the purpose, and the examples could be more integrated, slightly reducing efficiency.
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?
For a complex, potentially destructive tool with 11 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose, ethical warning, and high-level features, but lacks details on behavioral outcomes, error cases, or what to expect from the tool's execution, leaving gaps given the tool's complexity.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 11 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the examples showing url, data, and method usage. It doesn't explain parameter interactions, default behaviors, or advanced options like technique codes, keeping it at the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose as 'Automated SQL injection testing and exploitation' and elaborates with 'SQLMap automates the detection and exploitation of SQL injection vulnerabilities.' This specifies both the action (testing/exploitation) and resource (SQL injection vulnerabilities), distinguishing it from sibling web tools like fuzzing or directory scanning tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes a strong warning: 'Only use on systems you have authorization to test,' which provides clear ethical context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like kali_web_nikto_scan or kali_web_nuclei_scan for vulnerability assessment, nor does it mention prerequisites or typical use cases beyond the examples.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's purpose and supported methods, adding value beyond the schema. However, it lacks details on behavioral traits like whether it's read-only/destructive, permission requirements (beyond ARP note in schema), rate limits, output format, or network impact. The description doesn't contradict annotations since none exist.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Discover live hosts on a network using Nmap') and adds necessary detail about methods. Every word earns its place with zero waste, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 moderate complexity (network scanning with multiple methods), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the what and how at a high level but lacks details on behavioral context (e.g., safety, permissions beyond ARP), output format, or error handling. It's minimally viable but not fully comprehensive for an unannotated tool.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, providing clear documentation for all 3 parameters. The description adds minimal value by mentioning the methods (ping, ARP, TCP, UDP, ICMP), which relates to the 'method' parameter but doesn't explain semantics beyond what the schema already covers. This meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Discover live hosts') and resource ('on a network') using the tool 'Nmap'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'kali_network_nmap_scan' by focusing on host discovery rather than comprehensive scanning, and from 'kali_network_masscan_scan' by specifying Nmap's methods.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context by listing supported discovery methods (ping, ARP, TCP, UDP, ICMP), which helps understand when to use this tool. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives like 'kali_network_nmap_scan' or 'kali_network_masscan_scan', nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites beyond the ARP method note in the schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool is 'fast' and for 'discovering', which implies it's a scanning/read operation, but it lacks details on potential destructive effects (e.g., if it might trigger security alerts), authentication needs, rate limits, or output format. This leaves gaps in understanding its behavior beyond the basic purpose.
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 front-loaded and concise with two sentences that directly state the purpose and a key requirement (FUZZ keyword). There is no wasted text, and every sentence earns its place by providing essential information efficiently.
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 complexity (9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is somewhat complete for basic usage but lacks depth. It covers the purpose and a critical constraint (FUZZ keyword), but without annotations or output schema, it misses behavioral traits like safety, performance implications, or result interpretation, which are important for a fuzzing tool.
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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 9 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying the FUZZ keyword usage, but it does not provide additional semantics or context for parameters like default behaviors or interactions. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('fuzz', 'discovering') and resources ('hidden files, directories, and parameters'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like kali_web_gobuster_dir by specifying it's a 'fast web fuzzer' that requires the FUZZ keyword in the URL, which is unique among the listed web tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for usage by stating the URL must contain the FUZZ keyword, which implicitly guides when to use this tool (for fuzzing with that keyword). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like kali_web_gobuster_dir, which could help differentiate further.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: root requirements for certain scans, performance implications ('Large port ranges increase scan time significantly'), and practical constraints like timing trade-offs. It doesn't cover everything (e.g., network impact, error handling) but adds substantial value beyond basic functionality.
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 well-structured with clear sections (Capabilities, Usage Notes, Example), front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value without redundancy. It's appropriately sized for a complex tool with 10 parameters, efficiently conveying essential information in a digestible format.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (10 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is largely complete—it covers purpose, behavioral traits, and usage context. However, it lacks details on output format interpretation or error scenarios, which would be helpful since there's no output schema. Still, it provides sufficient guidance for effective use.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 10 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema—it mentions 'ports' and 'timing' in examples but doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide additional context. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose as 'Perform network port scanning using Nmap' with specific verbs ('scanning', 'discovering') and resources ('hosts', 'services', 'vulnerabilities'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like kali_network_masscan_scan by specifying Nmap's unique capabilities (e.g., OS fingerprinting, NSE scripts) that other scanning tools may not offer.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool through 'Usage Notes' (e.g., 'TCP SYN scan requires root privileges', 'Use appropriate timing for stealth vs speed'), and examples illustrate different scenarios. However, it doesn't explicitly compare to alternatives like kali_network_nmap_discover or kali_network_masscan_scan, missing explicit when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing critical behavioral traits: it's a brute-force attack tool (destructive by nature), requires authorization, supports parallel connections (implied by 'parallelized'), and provides protocol specifics. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, error handling, or output format.
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 efficiently structured with clear sections (overview, supported services, warning, example), uses bold formatting effectively, and every sentence adds value without redundancy. The example is particularly helpful for understanding practical usage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex 10-parameter brute-force tool with no annotations or output schema, the description provides good context about what the tool does, authorization requirements, and protocol support. However, it lacks information about return values, error conditions, and how results are presented to 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?
With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds some value through the example showing parameter usage patterns (target, service, username, password_list), but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's already documented in the comprehensive schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose as a 'parallelized login cracker' and 'network login brute-forcer' with specific protocol support, distinguishing it from sibling password tools like hashcat_crack and john_crack which focus on offline hash cracking rather than network login attacks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context with the authorization warning and example usage, but doesn't explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like kali_password_hashcat_crack or kali_password_john_crack for different attack scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![kali-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/azza39925/kali-mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/azza39925/kali-mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![kali-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/azza39925/kali-mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/azza39925/kali-mcp-server)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/azza39925/kali-mcp-server'

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