Search Metasploit modules by type, name, or other attributes using native search syntax such as type:auxiliary name:http to locate modules for red-team tasks.
Search Metasploit modules using its search syntax (e.g. type:auxiliary name:http).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes |
| 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 declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the syntax flavor (keyword filters), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about result shape, limits, or whether the query engine is substring vs. Lucene-style matching.
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 sentence with the verb and a worked example, no filler. It is efficient, though quite terse for a tool whose only argument has an unusual DSL.
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?
Output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and a one-parameter read-only search tool needs little more. The remaining gap is DSL documentation for the query, which is the sole risk for incorrect invocation.
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?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden for the single `query` parameter. It does give a concrete example ('type:auxiliary name:http'), which is better than nothing, but it doesn't enumerate valid keywords or operators or note that 'name:' matches on path fragments.
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 ('Search Metasploit modules') and names the syntax mode, which clearly separates it from msf_module_info (details) and msf_module_execute (run). It doesn't explicitly name a sibling, but the resource scope is unambiguous.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the discovery step before msf_module_info or msf_module_execute, but the description never says so or states exclusions. No alternative search tool is named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.