Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Bug Bounty Assistant MCP

Bug Bounty Assistant MCP

by rohitprasad-code
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

detect_technologies

Identify web technologies such as frameworks, CMS, and libraries used by a target website. Reveals the technology stack to inform security testing.

Instructions

Fingerprints frameworks, CMS, JS libraries, and web servers

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": {
      "target": "<target>"
    },
    "name": "detect_technologies"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
targetYesThe target URL or domain

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without disclosing side effects, permissions, rate limits, or return 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?

Single sentence is concise but lacks structure; it's front-loaded but omits important details, making it barely adequate.

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 only one parameter and no output schema, the description should clarify expected output or usage context. It does not, leaving agent with insufficient information.

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% (single 'target' param with description). Tool description adds no additional meaning beyond 'The target URL or domain', so baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Fingerprints frameworks, CMS, JS libraries, and web servers' clearly states the tool's action (fingerprinting) and specific resource categories, distinguishing it from sibling tools like analyze_cookies or ssl_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 explicit guidance on when to use or not use this tool, nor any mention of alternatives. Only implied usage from purpose.

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