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

chungus-kali-mcp

by cryptopepy
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

tools_dirb

Scan web servers for hidden directories and files using Dirb wordlists. Identify exposed content by brute-forcing common paths.

Instructions

Execute Dirb web content scanner.

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": "tools_dirb"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYes
wordlistNo/usr/share/wordlists/dirb/common.txt
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?

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only says 'Execute' with no mention of output format, runtime, network activity, or required permissions, offering minimal transparency beyond the tool name.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero filler words. However, its brevity borders on under-specification, lacking the detail needed for a 3-parameter tool, so it scores slightly below a perfect conciseness rating.

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?

With no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the minimal description leaves significant gaps. An agent cannot determine correct invocation beyond the schema field names, nor understand expected results or side effects, making the context incomplete.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate. It fails to mention that 'url' is required, what 'wordlist' defaults to, or how 'additional_args' should be used, leaving all three parameters semantically unexplained.

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 a specific verb ('Execute') and resource ('Dirb web content scanner'), making the tool's basic function obvious. However, it does not distinguish Dirb from sibling tools like tools_gobuster, tools_ffuf, or tools_nikto, so differentiation is absent.

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 Dirb versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. With many similar web scanner siblings, this lack of direction leaves the agent without selection criteria.

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