Skip to main content
Glama
nav33n25

IMCP - Insecure Model Context Protocol

vulnerability-summary

Summarize and analyze vulnerabilities found in IMCP, a deliberately insecure MCP server, with customizable detail levels for educational and security research purposes.

Instructions

Get a comprehensive overview of all vulnerabilities demonstrated by this educational server

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
detailLevelNoDetail level: overview, detailed, technical

Implementation Reference

  • Registration of the 'vulnerability-summary' tool with empty input schema.
    server.tool("vulnerability-summary", "Get a summary of all vulnerabilities demonstrated by this server", {}, function () { return __awaiter(void 0, void 0, void 0, function () {
  • The async handler function that lists all 14 vulnerabilities demonstrated by this educational MCP server.
    server.tool("vulnerability-summary", "Get a summary of all vulnerabilities demonstrated by this server", {}, function () { return __awaiter(void 0, void 0, void 0, function () {
        var vulnerabilities;
        return __generator(this, function (_a) {
            vulnerabilities = [
                "1. Direct Prompt Injection - User inputs override system instructions",
                "2. Jailbreak Prompt Injection - Advanced techniques to break constraints",
                "3. Tool Poisoning - Hidden malicious instructions in tool descriptions",
                "4. Tool Response Injection - Malicious hidden instructions in responses",
                "5. Rug Pull Attack - Tools change behavior after approval",
                "6. Context Leakage - Sensitive data exposed across sessions",
                "7. Instruction Override - Attempts to bypass security protocols",
                "8. Boundary Confusion - Exploiting unclear context boundaries",
                "9. Metadata Manipulation - Privilege escalation via metadata",
                "10. Tool Shadowing - Impersonating legitimate tools",
                "11. Server Name Collision - Deceptive naming to trick users",
                "12. Configuration Drift - Insecure configuration changes",
                "13. Session ID Exposure - Session identifiers leaked",
                "14. Consent Fatigue - Overwhelming users with permission requests"
            ];
            return [2 /*return*/, {
                    content: [
                        {
                            type: "text",
                            text: "\uD83D\uDCDA EDUCATIONAL MCP VULNERABILITY SUMMARY\n\nThis server demonstrates 14 different MCP security vulnerabilities:\n\n".concat(vulnerabilities.join('\n'), "\n\n\u26A0\uFE0F WARNING: This is for educational purposes only!\n\nEach tool in this server contains intentional vulnerabilities to help understand:\n- How attacks work\n- What to look for\n- How to prevent them\n- Impact of each vulnerability\n\nUse the individual tools to see each vulnerability in action.\n\n\uD83D\uDD0D To explore:\n- Try different inputs to trigger vulnerabilities\n- Notice how malicious behavior is hidden\n- Observe how user trust is exploited\n- See how sensitive data gets exposed\n\nRemember: NEVER use this server in production!")
                        }
                    ]
                }];
        });
    }); });
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 mentions 'Get a comprehensive overview,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or handles errors. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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?

The description is a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool's moderate complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on usage context, behavioral traits, and output format. Without annotations or an output schema, the agent must rely heavily on the description, which is incomplete for safe and effective use.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'detailLevel' documented as having options 'overview, detailed, technical.' The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as explaining the differences between these levels or default behavior. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score 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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'comprehensive overview of all vulnerabilities demonstrated by this educational server,' which is specific and actionable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'security-compliance-scanner' by focusing on vulnerability overview rather than scanning or compliance checks. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, such as 'session-info,' which might also relate to security aspects.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'security-compliance-scanner' or other security-related siblings. It lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name and description alone.

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

Related 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/nav33n25/IMCP'

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