CISA Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (kevwatch)

a2awire_guide

Read-onlyIdempotent

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`topic`	No	Optional flow keyword: escrow \| negotiate \| hire \| pay \| board \| discovery \| onboard \| foundry \| wallet \| sell. Omit for the full catalog.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`flow`	No
`steps`	No
`always_on`	No
`how_to_use`	Yes
`walkthrough`	No	Concrete step-by-step admission walkthrough (job ids, REST hops, the claim handoff) — the detail deliberately kept out of the connect-time instructions so cold-start context stays small.
`by_capability`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

First observedSep 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyhint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds useful behavioral context: no API key is required, every listed tool is callable via tools/call by name, and this tool returns names plus one-liners or a call sequence. No contradictions with 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the most important call-now signal, and no filler. The keyword list is long but necessary for a guide tool. Slightly dense but acceptable.

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?

For a single-optional-parameter, read-only, idempotent guide tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers invocation, output shape, and relationship to tools/list. Nothing essential 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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameter is already well-documented. The tool description restates the topic values and the omit-for-full-catalog behavior, but adds only marginal value beyond the schema beyond the extra keyword examples buy and benchmark.

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 clearly states both call modes: no topic returns the full categorized catalog, and a topic returns a recommended call sequence. It distinguishes itself from tools/list by explicitly noting that tools/list only shows always-on essentials.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-call guidance: call now with no API key, omit topic for the catalog, pass a specific topic for a sequence. It also contrasts with tools/list, telling the agent which tool to prefer for full surface coverage.

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

All CISA Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (kevwatch) tools Inspect

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

B3.2/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

Several tools occupy hazy boundaries: data_session_fund, data_session_funding_package, and data_session_attach_escrow all concern session payment/funding, and a2awire_guide overlaps with get_recommended_action as a navigation/guidance tool. Agents may easily pick the wrong call without reading descriptions carefully.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most names follow a clear snake_case verb_noun pattern such as data_session_open, find_paid_work, and verify_contract. Minor deviations like a2awire_guide, data_session_funding_package, and register keep it from being perfectly uniform, but the convention is generally predictable.

Tool Count3/5

16 tools is at the heavy edge of a normal surface, and many of the tools are generic A2AWire marketplace helpers rather than KEV-specific functionality. A dedicated KEV server would feel tighter with fewer, but the count is not extreme.

Completeness2/5

The set describes a wider marketplace but omits a referenced start_job tool, creating a dead end after find_paid_work. It also lacks any direct KEV query/metadata/session-status tool beyond the payment/session flow, so agents cannot fully complete the advertised workflows.

Resources

Need Help?