Creates a persistent msfconsole session and returns its ID for interactive Metasploit commands; destroy the console when finished.
Create a persistent msfconsole and return its ID; destroy it when finished.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| options | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true and non-idempotence; the description contributes the useful 'persistent' property and the obligation to clean up, which is the key leak risk. It never explains what the 'options' object controls, what happens if a console is abandoned, or any session/resource limits, so it adds only modest context beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single tight sentence that front-loads the action and its cost model ('persistent'), with no filler. It could have used the remaining space to characterize 'options' instead.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so the returned ID need not be explained, and the cleanup instruction is present. What is missing is any characterization of the only parameter and any warning about accumulating live consoles, which matters for an open-world, non-idempotent resource-creating tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
One parameter ('options') with 0% schema description coverage and an untyped free-form object. The description says nothing about it, so the agent is left guessing whether it is needed at all or which keys are accepted. Schema coverage is low, so the description needed to compensate and does not.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ('Create a persistent msfconsole') plus the return value (its ID), which cleanly separates it from siblings like msf_console_list, msf_console_write and msf_console_read. It does not name msf_console_destroy explicitly, leaving the teardown step implied rather than linked.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The lifecycle is clear: create, then destroy when finished, which implicitly routes the agent to msf_console_destroy. It stops short of saying when a persistent console is preferable to one-off alternatives such as msf_rpc or msf_module_execute, or when repeated creation is wasteful.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.