Skip to main content
Glama

CVE Risk Check

by app.openkrill
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Rank several CVEs

check_cves
Read-onlyIdempotent

Rank several CVEs. Use this when the user has a list of CVE ids and wants to know which to deal with first, such as "which of these CVEs should I patch first?". Pass up to 10 CVE ids. Returns each one's priority, CVSS score, CISA exploited-list status and EPSS score, most urgent first, with a count per priority. An id NVD could not be asked about in this call is marked deferred; ask for it again later. It does not know which software the user runs.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cvesYesUp to 10 CVE ids

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
countYes
countsYes
noticeYes
sourceYes
resultsYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • 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"
-}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • 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"
+}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: a 10-id cap, a deferred status for ids NVD could not be queried this call with a retry instruction, and an explicit scope limitation ("does not know which software the user runs"). These are real operational traits beyond the annotations.

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 purpose, then usage, then behavior; every sentence is short and earns its place except the return-value sentence, which duplicates the output schema.

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 not be described, yet the definition still covers the risky edge case (deferred ids) and the tool's knowledge boundary. Nothing an agent needs to call this 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and there is a single parameter whose format, pattern and 10-item cap are all documented in the schema. The description's "Pass up to 10 CVE ids" merely restates maxItems, so it adds no semantics beyond the structured fields.

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+resource ("Rank several CVEs") and is clearly the plural counterpart to the sibling check_cve. The scope (up to 10 ids, ranked most-urgent-first) is unambiguous without opening the schema.

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 an explicit trigger condition and a concrete example utterance ("which of these CVEs should I patch first?"). It does not, however, name the alternative path for a single CVE (check_cve), so the when-not side is left implicit.

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 toolsInspect
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.

Resources