PenTest MCP

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v3.0.0
Disambiguation2/5
Many tools have overlapping purposes (e.g., multiple port scanners, fuzzers, and vulnerability scanners). While descriptions provide some distinction, the high degree of redundancy makes it difficult for an agent to select the correct tool for a task.
Naming Consistency3/5
Most tools are named after actual tool names (e.g., nmap, sqlmap) which are not descriptive of actions. There are a few descriptive names like ping and init_session, but overall the naming is a mix of proper nouns and verbs, lacking a consistent pattern.
Tool Count2/5
31 tools is excessive for the scope, with many overlapping functionalities (e.g., 3 fuzzers, 2 TLS scanners). The count feels inflated by bundling every available tool rather than curating a minimal, non-redundant set.
Completeness3/5
The tool set covers major penetration testing areas (recon, scanning, web vulns, etc.), but notable gaps exist such as exploitation frameworks and post-exploitation tools. Additionally, the redundancy indicates incomplete coverage in certain areas.
Average 2.5/5 across 31 of 31 tools scored. Lowest: 1.5/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 1 commit in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as destructive actions, authentication needs, or output format. The agent cannot infer what the tool does beyond minimal testing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness1/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is only two words, which is under-specification rather than conciseness. It lacks any structure or details, making it insufficient for an agent to understand the tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It provides no context on how to use the tool, what results to expect, or any prerequisites.
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?
The description adds no parameter information. With only 25% schema description coverage (one parameter documented in schema), the description should compensate but does not explain the role of 'url', 'token', or 'session_id'.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'JWT security testing' is vague; it does not specify the exact operation (e.g., decode, crack, scan) and fails to differentiate from other potential JWT tools. A more precise verb+resource would clarify its purpose.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like sqlmap or nmap. The agent has no context for appropriate use cases or when to choose this tool over alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'scanner', failing to mention potential destructive actions, network impact, or need for explicit consent. The consent parameter in schema hints at ethical concerns, but the description does not elaborate.
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 extremely short (one phrase), but this is under-specification rather than efficient conciseness. A meaningful description would include essential context without being verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex vulnerability scanner with required session management and consent, the description is grossly incomplete. No output schema, low schema coverage, and no behavioral details make it insufficient for correct tool selection and invocation.
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 only 25% (one param documented). The description adds no meaning to parameters like 'url', 'session_id', or 'consent'. The agent gets no help understanding how to use the session_id or the role of consent.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Web server vulnerability scanner', which clearly indicates the tool's function and resource type. However, it lacks specificity to differentiate from sibling tools like nuclei or wafw00f, which also scan web servers. A 3 is appropriate for clear but generic purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings, prerequisites, or conditions. For example, nikto can be intrusive and may require authorization, but the description omits all context for appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should disclose key behaviors. It only mentions 'enumeration and reconnaissance' without detailing what that entails (e.g., zone transfers, brute force, record types). No mention of destructive potential, authentication needs, or rate limits.
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 extremely brief but under-specified. While concise, it fails to convey essential information, making it unhelpful for tool selection and invocation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, no annotations, and minimal description, the tool definition is severely incomplete. The agent cannot understand what dnsrecon returns, what actions it performs, or how to use it correctly.
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 coverage is only 33% (only dry_run described). The description adds no parameter information for 'domain' or 'session_id', failing to compensate for the low coverage. The description does not clarify their meaning or format.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'DNS enumeration and reconnaissance' states a broad purpose but is too generic. It does not distinguish from sibling DNS tools like subfinder or amass, which perform similar enumeration. The verb and resource are present but lacking specificity.
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?
No guidance on when to use dnsrecon versus alternative tools. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use contexts are provided, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. Merely labeling it a 'fuzzer' implies it sends many requests, potentially destructive, but no specifics on side effects, permissions, rate limits, or output. This is insufficient for safe and correct invocation.
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?
While extremely concise (4 words), this brevity comes at the cost of essential information. The description is closer to underspecification than efficient conciseness, and lacks any structure or key details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (fuzzing web apps, 4 parameters including required fields) and the absence of annotations or output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain input expectations, behavior, or output, making the tool unusable for an AI agent.
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 very low (25%), with only 'dry_run' having a description. The description 'Web application fuzzer' adds no meaning to the parameters. Critical parameters like 'url', 'fuzz_param', and 'session_id' remain undocumented both in schema and description, leaving the agent unable to use them correctly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Web application fuzzer' is minimal but indicates the general category of the tool. However, it lacks specificity about what exactly it fuzzes (e.g., URLs, parameters, headers) and does not differentiate it from sibling tools like ffuf or gobuster, which are also web fuzzers.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use wfuzz versus alternatives, nor are there any prerequisites, exclusions, or context for when it is appropriate. The tool exists among many similar fuzzing and scanning tools, making this gap significant.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, and the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as network access, non-destructiveness, or output format. The one-line description provides no behavioral context.
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?
Extremely concise but under-specified. The single phrase lacks structure and fails to convey necessary information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, many sibling tools), the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain return values, side effects, or differentiation from other fingerprinting tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 25% (only dry_run described). The tool description adds no additional meaning to parameters beyond the schema. Parameters like url, consent, session_id are left undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Web technology fingerprinting' vaguely indicates the tool's purpose but lacks a specific verb and resource. It does not distinguish from siblings like wafw00f or dnsrecon.
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?
No usage guidelines provided. No mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It merely states 'Advanced subdomain enumeration' with no mention of side effects, permissions, rate limits, or output format. This is a severe gap for a scanning tool. Score 1 for minimal and insufficient transparency.
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 extremely concise (3 words) but at the cost of informativeness. It lacks any structure or detail. Conciseness without substance is under-specification. Score 2 for minimal length but poor information density.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of subdomain enumeration and the rich set of sibling tools, the description is woefully incomplete. No output schema, no annotations, and cryptic parameter names (session_id, dry_run) exacerbate the lack of context. Score 1 for failing to provide adequate completeness.
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 low (33%), only describing dry_run. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema. For a 3-parameter tool, this is inadequate. Score 1 for failing to compensate for low schema coverage.
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 'Advanced subdomain enumeration' clearly identifies the tool's purpose: enumerating subdomains. The verb 'enumerates' is implied. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like subfinder or dnsrecon, making it somewhat generic. Score 4 for clear verb+resource but lacking differentiation.
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. Among 30 sibling tools, many (e.g., subfinder, dnsrecon) also enumerate subdomains. There is no information on prerequisites, context, or exclusions. Score 2 for absence of usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description gives no behavioral details. It does not disclose whether the tool sends requests, the nature of output, or any side effects.
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?
Extremely concise (3 words) but under-specified. It fails to provide necessary details, making it minimally useful.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain output format, prerequisites, or how to interpret results.
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?
With only 33% schema description coverage, and no parameter details in the description, the semantics of 'url' and 'session_id' are completely opaque. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema.
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 'HTTP parameter discovery' clearly states the specific verb (discover) and resource (HTTP parameters). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like ffuf or gobuster, which could also discover parameters in some contexts.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ffuf or gobuster. The description lacks context for appropriate usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'scanner' without detailing what the scan does, whether it sends requests, potential impact, or required permissions. This is a significant gap for a security tool that could be intrusive.
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 extremely short but lacks essential details, making it under-specified rather than concise. It does not follow a structure that helps the agent understand usage, parameters, or behavior.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of output schema and low parameter documentation, the description is far from complete. It does not explain what results are returned, the scan's scope, or how session_id is used. The tool's complexity demands more context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only 33% of parameters have schema descriptions (dry_run has one). The tool description adds no extra meaning to the parameters. The purpose of session_id and url are not clarified beyond their names, and the description does not compensate for the low schema coverage.
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 'CORS misconfiguration scanner' clearly states the tool's purpose: scanning for CORS misconfigurations. It specifies the resource (CORS misconfiguration) and implies scanning as the action. It distinguishes from sibling tools like nmap, sqlmap, etc., which focus on other 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 other scanners among the siblings. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it. The agent must infer from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Fast port scanner' and does not mention whether the scan is intrusive, requires permissions, affects the target, or what outputs are generated. This lack of transparency could lead to unexpected behavior.
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 concise (one sentence), but it is underspecified. It does not earn its place because it omits critical context needed for correct tool selection and use. Conciseness without completeness reduces utility.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain return values, required permissions, or behavior beyond scanning. The agent lacks sufficient information to use the tool correctly or interpret results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 25% (dry_run has a description). The tool description adds no additional meaning to parameters like 'target', 'ports', or 'session_id'. For a low-coverage schema, the description should compensate but fails to do so, leaving parameter semantics vague.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Fast port scanner' clearly states the tool's function (port scanning) and a key attribute (speed). However, it does not distinguish masscan from sibling tools like nmap, which also performs port scans. The purpose is clear but lacks specificity to differentiate it in a list of similar tools.
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?
No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use masscan over alternatives such as nmap or other scanners. There is no mention of preferred scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits (e.g., read-only, concurrency, output format). It provides none—just a bare statement of purpose. The dry_run parameter hints at preview capability but is not explained in the description.
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 a single short sentence, which is concise but lacks structure and completeness. It fails to front-load key details beyond the generic purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain how parameters affect behavior, what the tool returns, or any prerequisites.
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 coverage is only 25% (dry_run has a description). The description adds no meaning for target, session_id, or scan_type. The scan_type enum values are left unspecified, leaving the agent without guidance.
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 'Secret and credential scanner' clearly identifies the tool's core function of scanning for secrets and credentials. It is not a tautology and distinguishes it from sibling tools like nmap or sqlmap that serve different purposes.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., git vs filesystem scans, or versus other secret scanners). The description lacks context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the scan is destructive, requires specific permissions, rate limits, or what happens during execution (e.g., network requests, template loading). The phrase 'fast' hints at performance but is insufficient.
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 a single sentence, which is concise but overly brief. It sacrifices clarity for brevity, failing to include essential context that would justify its existence.
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's complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, many sibling tools), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain expected output, error handling, or how session_id is used. For a vulnerability scanner deployed alongside numerous alternatives, much more context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 33% description coverage (only dry_run has a description). The tool description adds no further meaning to the parameters (url, session_id) beyond their names and types. The dry_run parameter description in the schema is useful but not enhanced by the main description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Fast vulnerability scanner with templates' identifies the tool as a vulnerability scanner using templates, which distinguishes it from many sibling tools like ping or gobuster. However, it lacks specificity about what exactly the tool does with the provided URL (e.g., scans for specific vulnerabilities like CVEs, misconfigurations, etc.) and how templates are used.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its many sibling scanning tools (e.g., nmap, sqlmap, dalfox). There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided and the description gives no behavioral traits (destructiveness, permissions, output characteristics). The agent has no insight into side effects or requirements.
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 a single sentence, which is concise but minimal. It lacks structure and does not earn its place by adding value beyond the name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's four parameters, lack of output schema, and presence of a similar sibling tool, the description is severely insufficient. It does not explain return values, prerequisites, or how it differs from 'sslyze'.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 25% (only 'dry_run' has a description). The tool description adds no meaning to parameters like 'host', 'port', or 'session_id', failing to compensate for the low coverage.
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 performs TLS/SSL security testing, which is specific. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tool 'sslyze' which also tests SSL/TLS.
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?
No guidance on when to use 'testssl' versus alternatives like 'sslyze' or other scanning tools. No when-to-use or when-not-to conditions provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must carry the burden. It only says 'XSS vulnerability scanner', without disclosing that it sends network requests, may be destructive, or requires user consent. The session_id parameter implies authentication needs but is not explained.
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 very concise (3 words), but it is too minimal. While it's front-loaded, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity.
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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not mention what the tool returns, how the scan works, or any usage context beyond the goal.
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 only 20% (only dry_run has a description). The tool description adds no meaning to the parameters; it does not explain url, params, consent, or session_id.
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 'XSS vulnerability scanner' clearly states the tool's purpose: scanning for XSS vulnerabilities. It distinguishes from sibling tools like sqlmap (SQL injection) and gobuster (directory busting), making it clear what this tool targets.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as needing a valid session_id or consent, nor when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only implies that the tool performs brute forcing (which involves many requests), but does not mention safety, resource usage, permissions, or side effects. Minimal transparency.
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 at four words, but it is too terse to be informative. While brevity is valued, it sacrifices necessary detail for a multi-mode tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is severely incomplete for a tool with multiple modes (dir, dns, vhost) and no output schema. It fails to mention modes, requirements, or return values, leaving critical gaps.
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 low (25%), and the description adds no meaning to parameters. It does not explain 'url', 'mode', 'session_id', or their roles beyond the schema, which itself lacks descriptions for most parameters.
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 'brute forcing' and resource 'directory/file', indicating the tool's purpose. However, it does not differentiate it from sibling tools like ffuf or wfuzz, which also perform similar brute-forcing tasks.
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 gobuster versus alternatives. It lacks context on prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision-making support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It simply says 'GraphQL security scanner', giving no indication of whether the tool is read-only, potentially destructive, or what network requests it makes. For a security scanner that may send payloads, this omission is significant.
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 a single sentence, which is concise but severely under-specified for a tool with three parameters and no annotations. Important context is missing, and the brevity sacrifices completeness. Conciseness should not come at the cost of utility.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and low parameter coverage, the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain what the scan does, how results are returned, or any constraints. An AI agent would lack the information needed to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 33% (only 'dry_run' has a description). The tool description adds no parameter information. The 'url' and 'session_id' parameters are completely undocumented in the description, and the agent needs to infer their purpose from names alone. The description does not compensate for the low schema coverage.
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 it is a 'GraphQL security scanner', which indicates the tool scans GraphQL endpoints for security issues. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sqlmap (SQL injection) and nuclei (general scanning). However, it could be more specific about the type of security scanning (e.g., vulnerabilities, misconfigurations).
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., target must be a GraphQL endpoint) or when not to use it. The sibling tools cover a wide range of security scans, and without explicit guidance, an AI agent may select it inappropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It does not state whether the tool modifies state, requires specific permissions, or has rate limits. Parameters like 'consent' and 'dry_run' suggest important behavior but are not mentioned in the description.
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 one sentence, which is concise, but it is too vague to be effective. It does not fully earn its place because it omits critical details. A slightly longer but more informative description would be better.
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?
Considering the complexity of TLS/SSL scanning, the lack of output schema, and absent annotations, this description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool outputs, how to interpret results, or the scanning process. Important context is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With only 20% schema description coverage (only dry_run has a description), the description should add meaning to parameters. However, 'TLS/SSL configuration analyzer' provides no insight into host, port, consent, or session_id. The agent has no context for these parameters beyond the schema names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'TLS/SSL configuration analyzer' indicates the domain but uses a noun phrase instead of a verb. It vaguely suggests analysis without specifying actions like scanning or checking. Among siblings, testssl is a similar tool, and this description does not differentiate sslyze from it.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like testssl, nmap, or nuclei. The description lacks context on prerequisites or scenarios where sslyze is preferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only says 'passive', implying non-intrusiveness, but fails to disclose if API keys are needed, what sources are queried, whether it makes network calls, or any safety considerations. This is insufficient for a tool that likely performs network requests.
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 extremely concise (3 words), but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It omits critical information that would make it useful. Every word should earn its place, but here the two additional words beyond the tool name add minimal insight.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 4 parameters, no output schema, and 29 sibling tools, the description is severely incomplete. It does not address return values, prerequisites (e.g., a valid session), or how it integrates with other tools. A user would have no sense of what to expect after invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 25% (only dry_run has a description). The main description does not explain the 'domain', 'consent', or 'session_id' parameters. It adds no meaning beyond the sparse schema, leaving users unsure about parameter roles.
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 'Passive subdomain enumeration', which specifies the verb (enumeration), resource (subdomains), and methodology (passive). This distinguishes it from active enumeration siblings like gobuster and ffuf. However, it lacks detail on what passive enumeration entails, so it's clear but not highly specific.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like amass or dnsrecon. There are no usage conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned. The description gives no context for selecting this tool among the extensive sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'scanner'. Does not indicate safety, destructive potential, authentication needs, or scan behavior (e.g., active exploitation vs. detection).
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 extremely concise (one phrase) but is not a complete sentence. It is front-loaded but too minimal, missing necessary context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (security scanner with 3 parameters, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. No information on output format, prerequisites, or how to interpret results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is low (33%), and the tool description adds no meaning for parameters like 'url' or 'session_id'. Only 'dry_run' has a schema description, but the tool description does not compensate for missing param info.
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 'Command injection vulnerability scanner' clearly states the tool's purpose and resource (command injection vulnerabilities). It is specific but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like sqlmap or nuclei, though the name suggests a unique focus.
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?
No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like sqlmap or dalfox. The description lacks context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations and a terse description, the tool's behavior is unclear—it does not disclose whether it only checks existence, downloads files, or performs other actions. No mention of prerequisites, side effects, or limitations.
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?
While extremely concise, the description is under-specified, requiring more detail to be useful. It does not earn its brevity; essential information about function, parameters, and behavior is missing.
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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fails to provide adequate context. It is insufficient for an agent to understand how to invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is low (33%), with the 'url' and 'session_id' parameters lacking descriptions. The tool description does not explain these parameters or add meaning beyond the schema, leaving critical usage details ambiguous.
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 'Exposed .git directory dumper' clearly identifies the tool as targeting exposed .git directories, distinguishing it from sibling tools focused on other scans. However, it lacks specificity on the exact action (e.g., dumps contents, checks for exposure, downloads files).
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among many sibling scanning tools, there is no indication of the specific scenario (exposed .git repos) or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not disclose behavioral traits such as network impact, required permissions, or legal considerations. The consent parameter in the schema hints at a requirement, but the description fails to address it. No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden.
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 extremely concise at one sentence. While this avoids verbosity, it sacrifices necessary detail. The structure is minimal but acceptable for a very brief description; however, it is insufficient for a tool with 5 parameters and no other documentation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, many sibling tools, no annotations), the description is severely lacking. It does not explain return values, usage context, or tie to other tools. Completely inadequate for an agent to use effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 20% (only dry_run has a description). The tool description adds no information about the parameters host, ports, consent, or session_id. It does not compensate for the low coverage, leaving the agent to rely on schema field types alone.
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 'Port scanning and service detection' clearly states the tool's primary function. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like masscan or extensive_scan, which may also perform port scanning. The purpose is specific but lacks distinction.
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?
No usage guidelines are provided. There is no indication of when to use nmap vs alternative scanning tools, no prerequisites or restrictions mentioned. The agent receives no guidance on appropriate contexts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, and the description provides only a high-level purpose without disclosing behavioral traits such as rate limits, data sources, or potential impact on targets. For an OSINT tool, this is insufficient.
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 a single clause lacking structure or formatting. It is too brief and misses opportunities to add value with minimal additional text.
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 complexity of an OSINT tool and no output schema, the description should explain return values and usage context. It does not, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only 33% of parameters have schema descriptions (dry_run). The tool description adds no additional meaning for domain or session_id, and the overall description does not clarify parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.
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?
Description states 'OSINT gathering from public sources', which is a clear verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling OSINT tools like amass or dnsrecon, which also perform similar tasks.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools performing similar reconnaissance, the description fails to specify scenarios or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as network scanning behavior, rate limits, output format, or whether it requires specific privileges. The single phrase offers no behavioral context.
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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It could benefit from a brief sentence or bullet points. It earns a 3 for not being verbose, but it lacks substantive structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of a WAF detection tool, the description is severely incomplete. There is no indication of what the tool outputs (e.g., WAF name, version), how to interpret results, or any dependencies. The presence of similar sibling tools (whatweb, wfuzz) without differentiation makes this inadequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is only 33% (dry_run has a description). The description adds no meaning to the 'url' and 'session_id' parameters. The purpose of 'session_id' is ambiguous (e.g., session token or scan session), and no clarification is provided.
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 'Web Application Firewall detection' clearly states the tool's purpose: detecting WAFs. The verb 'detection' and resource 'WAF' are specific, and it distinguishes from siblings like ping or init_session, though it's somewhat similar to whatweb.
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?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use wafw00f versus alternatives like whatweb or nikto, nor does it mention any prerequisites or conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must cover behavior. It does not disclose safety concerns (e.g., intrusive nature of fuzzing), rate limits, or authorization needs. The consent parameter implies need for permission but is not explained.
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?
Single sentence, very concise and front-loaded. Could include more critical information without being verbose.
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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. Missing output format, error handling, and usage contexts.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is only 20% (just dry_run has description). URL, mode, consent, session_id lack explanation. Mode's enum values (dirs, files, vhosts) are not described.
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 it's a 'fast web fuzzer for directory/file discovery', which defines the tool's purpose. However, it does not mention vhosts or the fuzzing nature explicitly beyond directory and file discovery.
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?
No guidance on when to use ffuf versus sibling tools like gobuster, wfuzz, or dirb. No prerequisites or context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as potential destructiveness, authentication needs, rate limits, or the meaning of the consent/dry_run parameters. The agent is left unaware that exploitation can modify databases.
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 extremely brief (5 words) but under-specifies the tool. Conciseness should be balanced with informativeness; here it is too sparse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 5 parameters, low schema coverage, and no output schema, the description fails to provide adequate context. The tool is complex (SQL injection exploitation) but the description offers minimal guidance.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 20% (only dry_run has a description). The description adds no additional meaning to parameters like url, params, consent, or session_id beyond their names.
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 'SQL injection detection and exploitation' clearly states the tool's purpose: detecting and exploiting SQL injection vulnerabilities. It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., nmap, nuclei) which are not SQL-injection specific, establishing unique identity.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like commix (command injection) or dalfox (XSS). The description lacks any context about prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior, but it only states the initialization action. It does not explain what a 'session' entails, whether it is safe, what side effects occur, or if authentication is needed. This lack of detail leaves the agent uncertain about the tool's impact.
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 very short (one line) and front-loaded, but it under-specifies the tool's role. While brevity is valued, the content does not fully earn its place due to missing critical context.
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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description should provide more context about what initializing a session accomplishes, such as whether it creates a persistent state or requires prior steps. The lack of this information makes the definition incomplete for reliable agent 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?
Schema coverage is 100% with 'target' described as 'Target URL or domain', which is sufficient. The description adds no extra parameter insight, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.
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 action ('initialize') and the resource ('new security assessment session'), making the tool's primary function understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'quick_scan' or 'extensive_scan', which may also be session-related.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or conditions that would help an agent decide to invoke init_session over other tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description provides no behavioral details beyond 'health check'. It does not disclose the mechanism (e.g., ICMP, HTTP), required permissions, or side effects. With no annotations, this is a significant gap.
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 a single sentence, which is concise but under-specified. It lacks sufficient detail to be fully helpful, so it does not fully earn its place.
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?
For a simple health check tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides minimal context. It is adequate for a trivial tool but lacks information on return values or expected behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description is not required to add parameter info, so a baseline score of 4 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 identifies the tool as a health check for the PenTest MCP server, which is a specific resource and purpose. However, it could be more specific about what 'health check' entails (e.g., connectivity, response time).
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. While the context implies it's for connectivity checks, the description does not explicitly differentiate it from other tools or specify appropriate use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions duration (20-45 min) and active scanning (XSS, SQLi), but omits behavioral details like potential disruption, permissions needed, or rate limits. The consent parameter is in schema but not reinforced in description.
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?
Single sentence packs many items but is not structured (e.g., bullet points). It is concise but could be more readable. No wasted words, but the long list reduces clarity.
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?
No output schema, and description fails to mention return values, error handling, or how results are presented. Given the tool's complexity (multiple scan types), more context is needed for 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description does not add meaning beyond schema; it does not explain how to use 'target' or the purpose of 'consent' and 'dry_run' in the context of the scan.
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 it performs a comprehensive scan with a detailed list of components (WAF detection, full recon, top-1000 port scan, etc.), making the purpose evident. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like nmap, sqlmap, or dalfox, which are subsets of this scan.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus individual sibling tools (e.g., nmap, sqlmap). The description implies it's a catch-all but lacks explicit context or exclusions, leaving the agent unclear about trade-offs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'generate', implying a side effect, but lacks details on whether it overwrites existing reports, requires specific permissions, or returns immediately.
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?
Single sentence is very concise, front-loading the action and object. Could benefit from more context, but no unnecessary words.
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 no output schema and many sibling scanning tools, the description should explain what the report contains and any side effects. It is too sparse for a tool that presumably consolidates results.
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 coverage is 100% with one parameter 'session_id' described as 'Session identifier'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, earning the baseline score.
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?
Description 'Generate final security assessment report' clearly states it produces a report, using a specific verb and resource. It is distinct from the many scanning tools in the sibling list, but doesn't specify report format or scope.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or prerequisites. The only hint is the required 'session_id', but the description does not explain how to obtain it or when the report is ready.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states the tool scans for vulnerabilities but does not disclose if it modifies state, requires network access, or any side effects. The 'dry_run' parameter hints at execution but is not explained in the context of behavior.
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 extremely short (one phrase) but conveys the core purpose. However, it lacks structure and does not elaborate on critical details. It is concise but at the expense of necessary information for a 3-parameter tool.
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?
No output schema or annotations exist. The description fails to explain what the scan produces (e.g., vulnerability list, severity, or report format). For a scanner tool, this omission makes it incomplete for an agent to understand what to expect from the results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 33% (only 'dry_run' has a description). The tool description adds no additional meaning for 'url' or 'session_id', leaving their semantics unclear. Given low coverage, the description should compensate but fails to do so.
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 is a 'JavaScript library vulnerability scanner', which is a specific verb and resource. Among sibling tools that include various network and web scanners, 'retire' is the only one focused on JS libraries, making it easily distinguishable.
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 vs. alternatives like 'nuclei' or 'quick_scan'. There is no mention of prerequisites, target suitability, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. The description only says 'inspect' without clarifying if it is read-only, what it outputs, or any side effects. It lacks details on behavior such as whether it installs dependencies or just reports.
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 sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
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?
Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete for a simple inspection tool. However, it could benefit from describing the return format or what readiness means.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and the description adds meaning beyond the empty schema by clarifying the purpose. Baseline is 4 per instructions.
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 verb 'Inspect' and the resource 'environment', specifying it checks installed tools, missing dependencies, and assessment readiness. It distinguishes from sibling tools which are specific scanners or tests.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies using this tool to check environment readiness before an assessment, but it does not explicitly state when to use or avoid it, nor does it mention alternatives. Guidance is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses duration and lists active scan types, implying potential intrusiveness (supported by consent parameter). However, it does not explicitly state that the tool sends network requests or may impact targets.
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 sentence that efficiently lists capabilities without redundancy. Every phrase adds value, and the key attribute 'Fast triage scan' is front-loaded.
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?
No output schema exists, yet the description omits what the tool returns or reports. Users are left uncertain about the output format (e.g., JSON, report ID). Essential context for using the tool is missing.
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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for target, consent, and dry_run. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score 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 lists numerous specific checks (WAF detection, subdomain enum, etc.), clearly defining the tool's scope as a fast triage scan. It distinguishes from siblings like extensive_scan by emphasizing speed (10-15 min).
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 description implies use for initial quick assessments with 'Fast triage scan,' but lacks explicit guidance on when to avoid or which sibling to use instead (e.g., extensive_scan for deeper analysis).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![PenTest-MCP MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/omamishra8051-source/PenTest-MCP/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/omamishra8051-source/PenTest-MCP)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![PenTest-MCP MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/omamishra8051-source/PenTest-MCP/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/omamishra8051-source/PenTest-MCP)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/omamishra8051-source/PenTest-MCP'

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