Look up a single OSV.dev advisory by ID. Accepts GHSA / CVE / PYSEC / RUSTSEC / GO / OSV / DSA / ALPINE / DEBIAN / UBUNTU and other documented identifier prefixes. License: Apache 2.0.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Advisory ID, e.g. GHSA-r75f-5x8p-qvmc or CVE-2024-3094 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so description carries full burden. Lists license and identifier prefixes but does not disclose rate limits, error handling for missing IDs, or data freshness. Behavior is mostly predictable for a lookup tool, but lacks depth.
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 sentences, zero wasted words. Front-loaded with action and resource. License note provides useful context.
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?
No output schema, so description should at least hint at response content (e.g., advisory details). Current description only covers input and license, missing expected output. Good for input side, but incomplete for agent to anticipate return format.
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 has 100% coverage for the single 'id' parameter. Description adds value by listing example IDs and documenting the supported prefixes, going beyond the schema's generic description.
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?
Explicitly states lookup of a single OSV advisory by ID, lists accepted identifier prefixes, and clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_osv_advisory_for_package and get_cve_record.
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?
Purpose is clear but no guidance on when to use this versus get_osv_advisory_for_package or get_cve_record. Does not state when not to use or provide alternatives.
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.
