Skip to main content
Glama

ZEN SecDB

by cloud.nttzen.secdb

vulnerability_info

Get detailed information about a specific CVE.

What this tool does

Retrieves the full vulnerability record for a CVE from SecDB, including:

  • official description and summary

  • CVSS metrics (all versions available)

  • EPSS metadata (if present)

  • affected products and versions

  • vendor/security advisories

  • references and upstream sources

  • weakness classification (CWE)

  • exploit and patch information (if included in the record)

All information is returned in a structured Markdown format suitable for direct display.

When to use this tool

Use this tool when the user asks:

  • "Give me details about CVE-XYZ."

  • "Which products are affected by this vulnerability?"

  • "Show me advisories or references for this CVE."

  • "Explain what this vulnerability is and how serious it is."

This tool is ideal for deep inspection of a single vulnerability. For multiple CVEs, call the tool once per CVE.

Inputs

  • cve_id: valid CVE identifier (CVE-YYYY-NNNNN).

Outputs

Markdown-formatted vulnerability information including:

  • detailed description

  • severity metrics (CVSS, vectors)

  • affected products list

  • advisory list

  • references

  • weakness (CWE) details

  • additional structured metadata from SecDB

LLM usage guidelines

  • Always prefer this tool when the user needs factual information about a specific CVE.

  • If multiple CVEs are mentioned, call the tool once per CVE.

  • Combine with:

    • vulnerability_score - to enrich output with numerical CVSS/EPSS metrics

    • sightings_search - to check real-world exploitation, PoCs, plugins, advisories

    • ssvc_calculator - to compute prioritization based on the vulnerability data

  • Do not hallucinate product lists, advisories, or details—use what the tool returns.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cve_idYesCVE identification (CVE-YYYY-NNNNN)

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains the tool retrieves a record, returns structured Markdown, notes conditional data (EPSS, exploit/patch 'if present'), and warns not to hallucinate details. This is transparent about what the tool does and limits.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is well-structured with clear sections (What, When, Inputs, Outputs, LLM guidance). Every section adds value and the length is appropriate for the complexity of the tool. No fluff or redundant repetition.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description thoroughly covers return values (Markdown fields, severity metrics, affected products, etc.). It also addresses multi-CVE usage and integration with sibling tools, making the description complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 the description's input section simply restates the schema's CVE format (CVE-YYYY-NNNNN). It adds marginal value beyond the schema by noting the ID must be valid, but doesn't provide additional semantics or usage constraints beyond what's already in the structured definition.

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?

The description opens with 'Get detailed information about a specific CVE', clearly identifying the verb (get/info), resource (specific CVE), and scope (detailed vulnerability record). It enumerates the exact data returned, distinguishing this from sibling tools like vulnerability_search and vulnerability_score.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit 'When to use this tool' section provides example user queries and states 'Always prefer this tool when the user needs factual information about a specific CVE.' It also gives guidance for multiple CVEs (call once per CVE) and suggests complementary tools, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use alternatives.

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

All ZEN SecDB toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes (e.g., vulnerability_search for discovery, vulnerability_info for full details, vulnerability_score for CVSS/EPSS, epss_timeseries for history). However, pairs like vulnerability_info vs. vulnerability_score and linux_audit vs. purl_audit have overlapping functionality, though detailed descriptions help differentiate them.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent lowercase snake_case pattern with a descriptor and an operation noun (e.g., vulnerability_info, linux_audit, sightings_search, ssvc_calculator). No mixed conventions or stylistic deviations are present.

Tool Count5/5

The 11 tools are well-scoped for a vulnerability intelligence server, covering search, details, scoring, trends, audits, reports, and prioritization. The count is within the expected 3-15 range and each tool contributes a distinct capability.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the full vulnerability intelligence lifecycle: discovery (vulnerability_search), detailed lookup (vulnerability_info), risk scoring (vulnerability_score), EPSS history, real-world sightings, SSVC prioritization, audits for both OS packages and application dependencies, and aggregated reports. No obvious dead-end or missing critical operation is apparent.

Resources