Ligolo-ng MCP Server

ligolo_agent_command

Generate the agent command to execute on target machines, establishing a connection back to the Ligolo-ng proxy for network pivoting.

Instructions

Generate the agent command to run on target machines

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": {
      "proxyIp": "<proxyIp>"
    },
    "name": "ligolo_agent_command"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`proxyIp`	Yes	IP address of the proxy server (Kali)
`port`	No	Port the proxy is listening on	11601
`ignoreCert`	No	Ignore certificate verification (for self-signed)
`fingerprint`	No	Certificate fingerprint for verification (optional)
`useWs`	No	Use WebSocket transport
`retry`	No	Auto-retry on connection error

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0May 26, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavior. It only says 'generate' without mentioning what the output is (e.g., a string command), side effects, or any other behavioral traits.

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 a single, concise sentence. It is front-loaded and efficient, though slightly more detail would not hurt.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the simplicity of the tool and full schema, the description is mostly adequate but lacks information about the output format or any constraints, which could be useful.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the description does not need to add much. It provides no additional meaning beyond the schema, which is sufficient.

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 generates the agent command for target machines. However, it does not distinguish from siblings like ligolo_agent_info or clarify that the output is a command string.

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 or any prerequisites. The description lacks context for when this command should be generated.

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