Skip to main content
Glama
bsahane

kali-mcp-server

by bsahane

hydra_bruteforce

Brute-force network login services (SSH, FTP, HTTP, etc.) to test credential strength against authorized targets, using username or userlist and password or passwordlist.

Instructions

Brute-force a network login service (hydra). GATED — active exploitation.

TOOL_NAME=hydra_bruteforce DISPLAY_NAME=Hydra Login Brute-Forcer USECASE=Test credential strength against an in-scope network service (ssh, ftp, http-*, etc.) INSTRUCTIONS=1. Enable ALLOW_EXPLOITATION, 2. Ensure target in scope, 3. Provide service + username(s) + password(s)/list, 4. Call INPUT_DESCRIPTION=target (host/IP); service (e.g. ssh, ftp, http-post-form); username OR userlist path; password OR passwordlist path; port (optional) OUTPUT_DESCRIPTION=Dict with status, any valid credentials found, command and mode; blocked if exploitation disabled EXAMPLES=hydra_bruteforce("10.0.0.5", "ssh", username="admin", passwordlist="/wordlists/pw.txt") PREREQUISITES=ALLOW_EXPLOITATION=true AND target authorized and in scope RELATED_TOOLS=nmap_scan, hash_crack

Args: target: Host/IP running the service (must be in scope). service: hydra service module name. username: Single username to try. userlist: Path to a username wordlist (alternative to username). password: Single password to try. passwordlist: Path to a password wordlist (alternative to password). port: Optional service port.

Returns: Structured result dict (blocked if exploitation is disabled).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
portNo
targetYes
serviceYes
passwordNo
userlistNo
usernameNo
passwordlistNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose key behavior: "GATED — active exploitation", prerequisite ALLOW_EXPLOITATION, and that it returns 'blocked' if exploitation is disabled. It does not mention potential side effects like account lockouts, but the 'active exploitation' framing provides sufficient warning.

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 long but well-structured with labeled sections (USECASE, INSTRUCTIONS, INPUT_DESCRIPTION, etc.). It front-loads the core purpose and provides examples, though some redundancy exists between INSTRUCTIONS and PREREQUISITES.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a high-risk exploitation tool, the description is comprehensive: it covers purpose, usage prerequisites, input semantics, output format (structured dict with status, credentials, command, mode), and an example. The presence of an output schema also supports completeness, and the description explicitly states the blocked behavior.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, but the Args section thoroughly defines each parameter: target with scope note, service as hydra module, username/userlist alternatives, password/passwordlist alternatives, and optional port. This fully compensates for the minimal schema and adds practical semantics.

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 states a specific verb+resource: "Brute-force a network login service (hydra)" and includes a USECASE that distinguishes it from siblings like dir_bruteforce or hash_crack. The examples and related tools further clarify its unique role.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The INSTRUCTIONS and PREREQUISITES sections explicitly state when to use the tool: enable ALLOW_EXPLOITATION, ensure target is in scope, and provide service, username(s), password(s)/list. It also references RELATED_TOOLS (nmap_scan, hash_crack), giving context for alternatives.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

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/bsahane/kali-mcp-server'

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