kali-security-bridge

scan_wordpress_wpscan

Audit WordPress for security vulnerabilities: detect vulnerable plugins, themes, weak passwords, and exposed files. Get results to fix issues.

Instructions

Executa auditoria completa de WordPress usando WPScan. Use quando identificar um site WordPress (wp-login.php, wp-content/ no Gobuster/Nikto).

Detecta: plugins e temas vulneráveis, usuários enumerados, senhas fracas, xmlrpc habilitado, configurações inseguras, backups expostos.

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_url": "<target_url>"
    },
    "name": "scan_wordpress_wpscan"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`enumerate`	No	O que enumerar. Padrão: "vp,vt,u" (plugins vulneráveis, temas, usuários). Opções: "vp" plugins vuln, "ap" todos plugins, "vt" temas vuln, "at" todos temas, "u" usuários, "cb" config backups, "dbe" DB exports	vp,vt,u
`aggressive`	No	True = modo agressivo (mais detalhado, mais lento e ruidoso).
`target_url`	Yes	URL do WordPress. Ex: "http://192.168.1.10", "http://vulnwp-app:8080"

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 21, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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 lists detection capabilities but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., active scanning noise, brute-force behavior, need for an API token for full plugin database). The aggressive parameter hints at noise in the schema, but the description itself lacks behavioral depth.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences: first states the purpose, second gives the usage trigger. The detection list is compact and informative. No redundant text or boilerplate; every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With full parameter schema coverage and an output schema present, the description provides enough context for selecting and starting a scan. It could mention that output formatting is structured (output schema) but the existing schema already handles that. Overall adequate for this tool's complexity.

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%: all three parameters (enumerate, aggressive, target_url) have detailed descriptions. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action ('Executa auditoria completa de WordPress') using a named tool (WPScan) and enumerates the key detection categories (plugins/themes, users, weak passwords, xmlrpc, backups). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling scanners like scan_nuclei or scan_xmlrpc_wordpress, which target broader or narrower scopes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use quando identificar um site WordPress' with concrete indicators (wp-login.php, wp-content/ no Gobuster/Nikto). It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the trigger condition is clear and actionable.

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