Crack a JWT token's signing secret by testing it against a wordlist, revealing the key used for signature validation.
Attempt to crack a JWT token's signing secret.
Args: token: The JWT token to crack wordlist: Path to wordlist on the Kali server
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | Yes | ||
| wordlist | No | /usr/share/wordlists/rockyou.txt |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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 must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Attempt to crack,' implying a potentially long-running or resource-intensive process, but fails to disclose any details about duration, success/failure outcomes, side effects, or required permissions.
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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a bulleted list of parameters. Every word adds value with no filler. The structure is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed only by necessary parameter details.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (JWT cracking, wordlist dependency, potential runtime), the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values (while an output schema exists but is not shown), error handling, or when to expect success/failure. The sibling tools provide contrast but are not referenced.
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 coverage is 0%, meaning the description is the sole source of parameter meaning. It adds 'The JWT token to crack' for token and 'Path to wordlist on the Kali server' for wordlist. While this provides basic context, it does not explain token format requirements, wordlist compatibility, or how the default wordlist is used.
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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Attempt to crack a JWT token's signing secret.' This is a clear verb+resource action. The sibling tool list includes api_jwt_analyze, which likely analyzes tokens without cracking, so this description effectively distinguishes itself.
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 to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., api_jwt_analyze). There is no mention of prerequisites, such as needing a valid JWT token format or a wordlist file, nor any indication of typical use cases or contexts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.