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

chungus-kali-mcp

by cryptopepy
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

tools_nuclei

Scan a target for vulnerabilities with Nuclei, specifying severity, templates, or custom arguments.

Instructions

Execute Nuclei vulnerability 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": {
      "target": "<target>"
    },
    "name": "tools_nuclei"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
targetYes
severityNo
templatesNo
additional_argsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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 only states that a scan is executed, but does not mention potential side effects (e.g., intrusive network traffic), permission requirements, output format, or whether it is safe or destructive. This is a significant gap for a vulnerability scanner.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, concise sentence with no fluff, which is structurally simple. However, it is under-specified for a tool with 4 parameters and no other documentation, so it does not fully earn its place alongside the needed operational details.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is far from complete. It provides no information on parameter formats, expected outputs, error conditions, or use case context, leaving the agent to guess.

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 explain what parameters like 'target', 'severity', 'templates', and 'additional_args' mean or how to use them. The agent gets no semantic guidance beyond raw parameter names.

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 the verb 'Execute' and the resource 'Nuclei vulnerability scan', making the tool's primary function obvious. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'api_nuclei_scan' or other scan tools, so it misses the top score.

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 this tool versus alternatives like tools_nmap, tools_nikto, or api_nuclei_scan. There is no mention of intended scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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