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

chungus-kali-mcp

by cryptopepy
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

ad_ldap_enum

Enumerate Active Directory LDAP to list users, groups, and access policies using domain credentials.

Instructions

LDAP enumeration.

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": {
      "domain": "<domain>",
      "username": "<username>",
      "password": "<password>",
      "target": "<target>"
    },
    "name": "ad_ldap_enum"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYes
targetYes
passwordYes
usernameYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

D1.5/5.0
Behavior1/5

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 fails to mention any side effects, required permissions, output behavior, or operational details, making it completely opaque.

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 this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It provides no structured information and fails to use the available space to convey crucial details.

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?

For a tool with four required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, a two-word description is grossly insufficient. The agent lacks essential information about invocation mechanics, expected outcomes, and operational context.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the four parameters (domain, username, password, target). The agent must guess how these parameters are used, the password format, or the enumeration scope.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description 'LDAP enumeration.' essentially restates the tool name 'ad_ldap_enum' without adding any specific verb, scope, or functionality. It is vague and fails to differentiate from sibling tools like ad_smb_enum or ad_bloodhound_collect.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided, leaving the agent without any basis for tool selection.

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