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

chungus-kali-mcp

by cryptopepy
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

api_nuclei_scan

Scan API endpoints for known vulnerabilities using Nuclei templates. Provide a URL and optional severity to detect security issues.

Instructions

Nuclei API scan.

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": {
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "api_nuclei_scan"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYes
tagsNoapi
severityNo

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention what the scan does, whether it is safe, what changes it makes, or what output to expect. The description is completely silent on behavior beyond the name.

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 concise efficiency. It lacks essential details, so it does not 'earn its place' as a useful description. It is a minimal placeholder that fails to communicate necessary information.

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 tool has 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is the sole source of context. It provides almost none: no return value explanation, no parameter guidance, no behavioral effects. This is completely inadequate for an agent to invoke the tool effectively.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate by explaining the 'url', 'tags', and 'severity' parameters. It does not mention any of them, leaving the agent to guess that 'url' is the target and what 'tags' or 'severity' control. No semantic information is added.

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 'Nuclei API scan' is essentially a restatement of the tool name 'api_nuclei_scan'. It does not use a verb to describe an action or specify the resource being scanned beyond the name itself, making it a tautology rather than a clear purpose statement.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like tools_nuclei, api_ffuf_fuzz, or api_kiterunner_scan. The description provides no context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without information to select it appropriately.

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