Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
chungus-kali-mcp

chungus-kali-mcp

by cryptopepy
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

ad_coerce

Coerce Windows authentication on a target to capture NetNTLM hashes or enable relay attacks via coercer or petitpotam.

Instructions

Coerce authentication (coercer or petitpotam).

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": {
      "target": "<target>"
    },
    "name": "ad_coerce"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toolNocoercer
targetYes
listenerNo
additional_argsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention whether the operation is invasive, requires credentials, impacts the target, or produces specific output. The phrase 'coerce authentication' implies an active attack but gives no detail on side effects or dependencies.

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, which is efficient, but it omits critical information. It is a single sentence with no structure, making it under-specified for a tool with four parameters.

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 (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is highly incomplete. It does not explain when and how to invoke it, what the output looks like, or any operational context. This is a minimal placeholder rather than a complete description.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only hints at the 'tool' parameter by naming two options, but the other parameters (target, listener, additional_args) are completely unexplained. No syntax, defaults, or role of each parameter is described beyond the schema.

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 states a clear action ('coerce authentication') and identifies two specific tools (coercer or petitpotam), which distinguishes it from other AD tools. However, it could be more specific about what 'coerce authentication' entails and how the two tools differ.

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 other AD tools, nor any prerequisites, target conditions, or alternative tools. The description does not mention exclusions or preferred scenarios.

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