Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Mythic MCP

Mythic MCP

by johanrobbenites
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

run_kerberoast

Perform Kerberoasting by uploading and executing Rubeus to extract Active Directory service account hashes for offline cracking.

Instructions

Upload and run Rubeus (Kerberoasting).

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": {
      "agent_id": "<agent_id>",
      "rubeus_base64": "<rubeus_base64>"
    },
    "name": "run_kerberoast"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
argsNokerberoast
agent_idYes
rubeus_base64Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions uploading and running Rubeus, but does not disclose the system impacts, permissions required, output format, or that Kerberoasting involves network requests and potential hash extraction. This is a significant transparency gap.

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, efficient sentence with no filler. It front-loads the main action and purpose. While it is brief, it is not under-specified to the point of being a tautology.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this minimal description is insufficient. It omits any guidance on parameter usage, expected outputs, or system behavior, leaving the agent to guess at essential details.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% for three parameters. The description does not explain what rubeus_base64, agent_id, or args mean or how they should be populated. Since coverage is low and the description fails to compensate, parameter semantics are essentially absent.

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 clearly states the tool uploads and runs Rubeus, a Kerberoasting tool. It identifies a specific verb+resource+scope, distinguishing it from generic shell or upload tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like run_sharphound, so it lacks full sibling differentiation.

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?

The parenthetical '(Kerberoasting)' provides a clear context for when to use this tool: when performing Kerberoasting attacks. While it does not mention exclusions or alternatives, the context is explicit rather than implied.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools