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

chungus-kali-mcp

by cryptopepy
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

tools_masscan

Run masscan to identify open ports and services on target systems. Set target, ports, and scan rate, plus pass extra arguments for custom reconnaissance.

Instructions

Execute masscan.

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": "tools_masscan"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rateNo
portsNo1-65535
targetYes
additional_argsNo

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 that masscan is a high-speed network scanner, potential impact, or any safety considerations. No behavioral traits are revealed beyond the name itself.

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, which is not conciseness but under-specification. It consists of a single phrase that provides no useful structure or detail, failing to earn its place as a meaningful 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?

Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is completely inadequate. It omits critical information about usage, parameters, and behavior, making it nearly useless for an agent trying to invoke the tool 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%, and the description adds no meaning to the four parameters (rate, ports, target, additional_args). The description does not explain what these parameters do or how to use them, leaving the agent to infer everything from the schema's bare property names.

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 masscan' is essentially a tautology, restating the tool's name without explaining what masscan does or how it differs from sibling tools like tools_nmap or tools_nikto. It provides no actionable clarity about the tool's specific purpose.

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. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction 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