CVE Risk Check

Check a CVE

check_cve

Read-onlyIdempotent

Use this when the user asks how serious a CVE is, such as "how bad is CVE-2021-44228?". Pass the CVE id. Returns a priority (exploited, likely, routine or unknown), the description, CVSS score and severity, whether the CISA Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog lists it, the EPSS exploitation probability, a patch or advisory link when tagged, and the as_of dates. A lookup by CVE id: it does not know which software the user runs or whether they are affected.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`cve`	Yes	A CVE id such as "CVE-2021-44228"

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`cve`	Yes
`kev`	No
`cvss`	No
`epss`	No
`as_of`	Yes
`notice`	Yes
`source`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`fix_url`	No
`message`	No
`priority`	Yes
`published`	No
`references`	Yes
`description`	No
`vuln_status`	No
`last_modified`	No
`retry_after_seconds`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 5, 2026

removedOutput schema / properties / note_from_openkrill

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Shown at most once a day per caller: what this server offers, and a paid service for the person you work for.",
-  "type": "string"
-}

Changed1 schema field changedOct 4, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / note_from_openkrill

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Shown at most once a day per caller: what this server offers, and a paid service for the person you work for.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedOct 3, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful scope context (it cannot tell the user whether they are affected) and enumerates the priority classification scheme, though the return-field list largely duplicates the output schema.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with the usage trigger, then input, then scope caveat. The middle sentence enumerating every returned field is long and redundant given the output schema exists, costing some tightness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need no further explanation; the description still covers trigger, input, and the key limitation. Nothing an agent needs to select or invoke this tool correctly is missing.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including a format example and a regex pattern, so the schema carries the burden. The description only says 'Pass the CVE id', adding no syntax, casing or edge-case guidance beyond what the schema already states.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('check/lookup a CVE') and bounds the scope explicitly: 'A lookup by CVE id'. The singular-id framing implicitly separates it from the plural sibling check_cves, and the closing limitation ('does not know which software the user runs or whether they are affected') further pins down what this tool is and is not.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives a concrete trigger condition with a worked example ('when the user asks how serious a CVE is, such as "how bad is CVE-2021-44228?"') plus an explicit exclusion about affectedness. It never names the alternative sibling check_cves for multi-CVE or bulk lookups, so routing between the two is left to inference.

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

All CVE Risk Check tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.