Skip to main content
Glama

nosqli_auth_bypass

Test authentication bypass using NoSQL injection by sending payloads that exploit MongoDB query operators like $ne, $gt, and $regex to bypass password validation checks.

Instructions

Test NoSQL operator injection ($ne, $gt, $regex) for authentication bypass. Sends payloads that abuse MongoDB query operators to bypass password checks. E.g., {"username":"admin","password":{"$ne":""}} matches any non-empty password. Returns: {results: [{payload_name, status, length, likely_bypass, snippet}]}. Side effects: Sends POST requests to the login endpoint. May create sessions.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesLogin endpoint URL, e.g. https://target/login or https://target/api/auth
username_paramNoJSON field name for username, e.g. 'username' or 'email'username
password_paramNoJSON field name for passwordpassword
target_usernameNoUsername to bypass auth for, e.g. 'admin'admin
Behavior4/5

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 effectively describes what the tool does (sends POST requests with injection payloads), mentions side effects (may create sessions), and specifies the return format. However, it doesn't mention potential risks, rate limits, or authentication requirements for the tool itself.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is efficiently structured with three sentences covering purpose, example, and behavioral aspects. Each sentence adds value: the first states the core function, the second provides a concrete example, and the third covers side effects and return format. It could be slightly more front-loaded by moving the return format earlier.

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?

For a security testing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good coverage of what the tool does, how it works, and what to expect. It explains the testing technique, gives an example payload, describes the return structure, and mentions side effects. The main gap is lack of explicit security warnings or usage prerequisites.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents all 4 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it focuses on the technique and behavior rather than parameter usage. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 specific action ('Test NoSQL operator injection for authentication bypass'), identifies the target resource (authentication mechanism), and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on NoSQL injection techniques rather than other auth bypass methods like SQL injection or brute force. It provides a concrete example of the technique being tested.

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 usage context (testing authentication bypass via NoSQL injection) but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'sqli_login_bypass' or 'auth_bruteforce'. It does mention the specific technique ($ne, $gt, $regex operators) which helps differentiate from other approaches, but lacks explicit comparison or exclusion guidance.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

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

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/operantlabs/operant-mcp'

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