Zebbern Kali MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

ad_bloodhound_collect

Collect Active Directory domain data for BloodHound to uncover hidden attack paths and privilege escalation routes. Provide domain, username, password, and optional DC IP or collection method.

Instructions

Run BloodHound data collection against an Active Directory domain.

Args: domain: Target AD domain (e.g., corp.local) username: Domain username password: Domain password dc_ip: Domain Controller IP (auto-detected if empty) collection_method: Collection method (all, default, DCOnly, etc.) nameserver: Custom DNS nameserver

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`dc_ip`	No
`domain`	Yes
`password`	Yes
`username`	Yes
`nameserver`	No
`collection_method`	No	all

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 12, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as output format, side effects (e.g., network traffic, alert generation), or prerequisites beyond parameters. The description is minimal.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is concise with a clear structure: a one-sentence purpose line followed by a list of parameters. Every sentence provides necessary value with no redundancy.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description does not explain what the tool returns or any important operational context (e.g., output format, runtime expectations, required privileges). This leaves the agent underinformed.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the tool's description includes an 'Args' section with clear explanations for each of the 6 parameters, adding meaning beyond the schema's titles and defaults.

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 verb 'Run' and the resource 'BloodHound data collection against an Active Directory domain'. It distinguishes this tool from sibling AD tools by specifying BloodHound collection specifically.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives like ad_ldap_enum or ad_secretsdump. The description does not provide context for selection.

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

Deploy Server