Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
operant-mcp

operant-mcp

Official
by operantlabs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

ssrf_test

Test SSRF vulnerabilities by sending multiple localhost bypass variants to check if servers fetch internal resources. Returns detailed results for each attempt.

Instructions

Test SSRF with localhost bypass variants. Sends 10+ representations of localhost (127.0.0.1, 0, decimal, hex, IPv6, etc.) to check if the server fetches internal resources. Returns results array with variant, payload_url, status, length, different_from_baseline per attempt. Side effects: May cause the target server to make internal requests.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "url": "<url>",
      "parameter": "<parameter>"
    },
    "name": "ssrf_test"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesTarget URL that accepts a URL/host parameter
parameterYesParameter that accepts URLs, e.g. 'url', 'src', 'redirect'
internal_targetNoInternal resource to reach, e.g. 'http://localhost/admin'
methodNoHTTP method

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
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 key behaviors: the tool sends multiple localhost variants, returns results in a structured array, and warns of side effects (may cause internal requests). However, it lacks details on error handling, timeouts, 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by details on behavior and side effects. It uses three sentences efficiently, with minimal waste, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating side effects into a distinct note).

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 the tool's complexity (security testing with side effects) and no annotations or output schema, the description provides good context: purpose, behavior, return format, and side effects. It covers essential aspects but could benefit from more detail on output structure or error cases to be fully complete.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description does not add specific meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., examples of 'parameter' values or 'internal_target' usage). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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's purpose with specific verbs ('Test SSRF with localhost bypass variants', 'Sends 10+ representations of localhost', 'check if the server fetches internal resources') and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on SSRF testing with localhost bypass techniques, unlike other tools like 'ssrf_cloud_metadata' or general recon tools.

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 usage for SSRF testing with localhost bypass, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'ssrf_cloud_metadata' or other testing tools. It provides context (testing server-side request forgery) but lacks explicit guidance on exclusions or prerequisites.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools