Gain SYSTEM privileges or impersonate another user to elevate token access during Windows security assessments.
Elevate to SYSTEM token or impersonate another user
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user | No | Specific user to impersonate | |
| domainadmin | No | Try to elevate to a domain admin token |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since annotations are absent, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It names the core action but omits side effects, privilege requirements, whether the current process is modified, and any security or persistence implications. This is insufficient for a powerful token manipulation tool.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence with no filler and the core action is front-loaded. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.
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?
For a tool with no output schema, no annotations, and optional parameters, the description does not fully explain how to choose between SYSTEM elevation, domain admin elevation, and user impersonation. The lack of mode-selection guidance and preconditions makes it incomplete for an agent trying to invoke it safely and correctly.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description loosely aligns with the 'user' parameter via 'impersonate another user', but it does not explain the 'domainadmin' parameter or the behavior when no parameters are supplied.
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 states a specific action ('Elevate to SYSTEM token or impersonate another user') on a clear resource type. It distinguishes this tool from the credential-dumping and Kerberos sibling tools, which all target different Mimikatz functions.
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?
No guidance is provided on when this tool should be used versus alternatives, what prerequisites are required, or how it fits into an overall Mimikatz workflow. The context of token elevation is implied but never explicitly tied to subsequent commands.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.