Extract plaintext passwords, hashes, PINs, and Kerberos tickets from Windows memory to assess credential exposure. Requires elevated privileges.
Extract plaintext passwords, hashes, PIN codes, and Kerberos tickets from memory. Requires elevated privileges.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target_host | No | Optional remote host to target (requires appropriate access) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the operation requires elevated privileges and reads credentials from memory, suggesting a non-destructive but privileged action. It does not disclose effects on LSASS, output behavior, or risk of detection, leaving a moderate transparency gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences with no filler: the action, target, data types, and prerequisite are all front-loaded. Every phrase earns its place, and the length is appropriate for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is adequate for a simple one-optional-parameter tool, but it omits guidance on when to choose this instead of related sekurlsa or lsadump tools. It also does not describe the output shape or remote-targeting caveats beyond the schema, which is a notable gap given there is no output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single optional parameter has 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains target_host and its access requirement. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail, which matches the baseline expectation for high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a concrete verb ('Extract') and names the resource: plaintext passwords, hashes, PIN codes, and Kerberos tickets from memory. It implies the broadest sekurlsa credential dump, distinguishing it from siblings that target a single source like wdigest, kerberos, or msv, though it never explicitly names LSASS or live logon sessions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It states the prerequisite of elevated privileges, which is important operational context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus sibling tools such as mimikatz_sekurlsa_wdigest or mimikatz_lsadump_sam; the intended selection context is only implied by listing multiple credential types.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.