Look up a single CVE Record v5.2 from the MITRE CVE List by ID (e.g. CVE-2024-3094). Lazy-fetched and cached 7 days. License: MITRE CVE Terms of Use, commercial redistribution permitted; the response includes the standard attribution block.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cve_id | Yes | CVE identifier in CVE-YYYY-NNNNN form, case-insensitive |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses lazy-fetching, 7-day caching, license terms, and attribution requirement, which are helpful behavioral details.
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 succinct, front-loaded sentences with no wasted words. Every sentence provides essential information: purpose, example, caching, license, and attribution.
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 simple lookup with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, caching, and license. It lacks detail about the response format but is otherwise complete.
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 100% with a clear description of the cve_id parameter. The tool description adds an example and mentions case-insensitivity, but this closely mirrors the schema, adding no significant new meaning.
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?
Description clearly states the action ('look up'), specific resource ('CVE Record v5.2 from the MITRE CVE List'), and provides an example ID. It distinguishes from siblings like get_kev_catalog and get_epss_score.
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?
Implied usage for retrieving a single CVE by ID, but no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives or prerequisites. Adequate for a simple lookup.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Several security/vulnerability tools (check_ai_supply_chain_risk, get_cve_record, get_osv_advisory_by_id, get_osv_advisory_for_package) have overlapping purposes, making it potentially confusing to choose the right one. Other tools are more distinct, but the ambiguity in this cluster lowers the score.
All names are snake_case and mostly follow a verb_noun pattern, but the verbs are inconsistent (check, get, list, lookup, query, register, route, search, submit, whats_new). Some tools use 'get' while others use 'check' for similar retrieval actions, and 'whats_new' does not fit the verb_noun pattern.
With 27 tools, the count exceeds the 25 threshold for 'too many', even though the broad scope spans many domains. The sheer number makes the server feel heavy and harder to navigate.
The server covers a wide range of data domains, but notable gaps exist: no management of watch subscriptions (only register), no CVE search, and no model search. Write operations are minimal, leaving some workflows incomplete.
