chungus-kali-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

tools_gobuster

Discover hidden directories and files on web servers by running Gobuster with customizable wordlists, threads, extensions, and status codes.

Instructions

Execute Gobuster.

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_gobuster"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`url`	Yes
`mode`	No	dir
`threads`	No
`wordlist`	No	/usr/share/wordlists/dirb/common.txt
`extensions`	No
`status_codes`	No
`additional_args`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 14, 2026

TDQS

D1.3/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. 'Execute Gobuster' says nothing about network activity, brute-force behavior, potential noise, permissions needed, or side effects. It completely fails to explain what executing Gobuster actually does.

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 just two words, which is extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It omits essential behavioral and usage information, so it does not earn its place as a useful description.

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?

With 7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, the description is grossly incomplete. There is no context about the tool's capabilities, expected inputs, or output format, making it nearly impossible for an agent to invoke correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate for the 7 parameters. It does not mention a single parameter, nor does it give hints about url, mode, wordlist, or additional_args. The parameter names in the schema are self-explanatory to some degree, but the description adds zero value.

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 'Execute Gobuster' names the target tool and uses a verb, but it does not explain what Gobuster does or how it differs from similar brute-forcing tools like tools_ffuf and tools_dirb. It is essentially a restatement of the tool name with 'execute' prefix, providing no functional scope or outcome.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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. The sibling list includes many similar scanners (dirb, ffuf, nuclei, etc.) but the description gives no situational context, prerequisites, or exclusions. A user must already know when Gobuster is appropriate.

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

Deploy Server