Pathfinder

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Nuclei Scan

nuclei_scan

Run nuclei templates against a target to detect vulnerabilities; filter by severity and reuse scan tokens to chain reconnaissance steps.

Instructions

Run nuclei templates against a target.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`target`	Yes	URL or host, e.g. "https://example.com".
`severity`	No	Filter by severity, e.g. ["high", "critical"].
`templates`	No	Template dirs or IDs, e.g. ["cves", "exposures"].
`from_token`	No	Optional scan_token from an earlier call.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 5, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action but omits key behavioral traits: whether the scan is read-only, whether it sends network requests, authorization requirements, rate limits, or potential impact on the target. This is a significant gap for a security scanning tool.

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 wasted words. However, its extreme brevity leaves important context unaddressed, which is captured under other dimensions.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Yet with no annotations, the description should at least hint at usage context or behavioral traits. It does not, leaving the agent with insufficient information to confidently select or invoke this tool among many security scanning siblings.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters thoroughly. The description only implicitly references target and templates. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting with no added meaning from the description.

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 states a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('nuclei templates against a target'), making the core action clear. It does not differentiate the tool from sibling scanning tools like port_scan or http_probe, so it falls short of a 5.

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 when-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or when this tool should be chosen over siblings such as tech_detect or waf_detect.

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

Deploy Server