Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
SRC Hunter MCP Server

SRC Hunter MCP Server

by mUggles1
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

generate-report

Generate a structured reconnaissance report from a scan ID. Choose markdown, JSON, or HTML format and optionally include raw data for deeper analysis.

Instructions

生成侦察报告

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": {
      "scan_id": "<scan_id>"
    },
    "name": "generate-report"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
formatNo报告格式
scan_idYes扫描 ID
include_rawNo包含原始数据

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says a report is generated; it does not explain side effects, whether the report is persisted, what inputs it depends on, or how long generation might take.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is concise with no filler words. However, it is so minimal that it provides little useful structure or information beyond the tool's name.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and many sibling tools, this description is incomplete. An agent cannot tell what format the report returns, whether it is based on scan_id, or how it differs from export-findings.

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%, so the schema already documents scan_id, format, and include_raw. The description adds no extra meaning about these parameters, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a clear action and resource: '生成侦察报告' (generate reconnaissance report). This is understandable on its own, but it does not differentiate this tool from siblings like export-findings or the scan/recon tools, and it largely restates the tool name.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as export-findings or the various scan tools. No conditions, exclusions, or prerequisites are given.

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