Skip to main content
Glama

Nosqli Probe

nosqli_probe
Destructive

Detect NoSQL injection in MongoDB-backed login forms by testing a single body parameter for operator injection and identifying authentication bypass risks.

Instructions

[EXPLOIT — requires human approval] Detect NoSQL injection (MongoDB operator injection) with nosqli.

data supplies one name=value body parameter, and it should be a valid value (username=alice): the tool mutates what you give it, and a body rejected before it reaches the query tests nothing.

One pair, not a body, because & is hard-denied for every argument in this project and nosqli's --data takes a single string. A login form needing both a username and a password cannot be expressed here — test that by hand, or with a proxy-driven request. Saying so is the point: the alternative is a probe that silently tests half the form.

Authentication bypass is the usual impact: {"password": {"$ne": ""}} matching every document. This probe stops at detection, and enumerating a collection to show severity is exactly what "do not exfiltrate" means.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataNo
targetYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observedv2.1.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description explicitly states the tool mutates the provided data, which aligns with the destructiveHint annotation. It also clarifies that it only detects and does not exfiltrate data, providing transparency about its operational scope. No contradiction with the annotations.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is unnecessarily verbose and repetitive. It includes multiple tangential statements about the limitations of the tool and ethical warnings, which could be condensed. For example, the same idea about a single data pair is expressed in multiple sentences. A more concise version would be more effective.

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?

Overall, the description includes enough context about usage constraints and behavior to guide an agent effectively, including security considerations and the distinction between detection and exploitation. However, the lack of explanation for the 'target' parameter and the excessive verbosity reduce completeness slightly.

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?

The description thoroughly explains the 'data' parameter, including its format and constraints, but does not mention the 'target' parameter at all. Since target is a required parameter, leaving it undefined reduces clarity. Schema coverage is incomplete for one of the two parameters.

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 clearly states the tool detects NoSQL injection (MongoDB operator injection) using nosqli. This is a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes itself from other injection-related sibling tools like sqli_validate and web_injection_probe.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description provides detailed usage guidance, including that 'data' must be a single name=value pair, that the tool mutates input, that ampersands are hard-denied and only one pair is allowed, and that a login form with both username and password cannot be tested here. It also states the probe stops at detection and advises against exfiltration, giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use context.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/iamsecure1920/Cordon-AI'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server