Skip to main content
Glama

Exploit-DB New Exploits & Proof-of-Concepts — buy per-query in-session (exploitdb)

by com.a2awire

data_preview

Read-onlyIdempotent

✅ No API key needed — call this now. Listing: exploitdb: Exploit-DB — New Public Exploits & PoCs. Price 0.01 USDC/query (max 20 queries/session). Sample questions: What new exploits were published on Exploit-DB this week?; Any new remote code execution or webapp exploits I should patch against?. FREE preview — no key, no payment. Try one of the sample questions now.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
slugNoPublic listing slug. Defaults to the routed session's listing when connected via /mcp/data/{slug}/http.
questionNoOptional free-text question you'd ask this data (echoed back).

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only and idempotent, and the description adds useful context beyond those annotations: no authentication needed, no payment needed, a session query limit, and that only public metadata is involved. There is no contradiction with 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.

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is short and front-loaded, but it repeats the free/no-key idea ('No API key needed' and 'FREE preview — no key, no payment') and includes promotional calls-to-action ('call this now', 'Try ... now') that add little informational value. It is reasonably sized but not tight.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple, read-only two-parameter tool, the description covers access constraints (free, no key, 20 queries/session) and the target listing. However, with no output schema, it does not describe what the preview response contains, and it gives sample questions rather than a general invocation pattern.

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 both slug and question are already documented. The description adds sample questions but does not clarify parameter syntax, defaults, or the echo behavior beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description identifies the tool as a free preview of a data listing, names the specific Exploit-DB listing, and provides sample questions that clarify intended use. It is not a tautology, though it relies on the schema and annotations to make the exact behavior explicit.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description gives a clear trigger ('No API key needed — call this now', 'FREE preview — no key, no payment') and practical limits (max 20 queries/session). However, it never names sibling alternatives like data_session_query or states when not to use this tool, so routing decisions are 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 Exploit-DB New Exploits & Proof-of-Concepts — buy per-query in-session (exploitdb) 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

B3.2/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools overlap in purpose: data_session_fund, data_session_funding_package, and data_session_attach_escrow all concern funding/escrow; a2awire_guide, get_recommended_action, and onboard_start all provide guidance/state; and discover_agents, find_paid_work, and hire_and_execute all point at marketplace hiring. Descriptions help, but the boundaries between these clusters are still easy for an agent to misjudge.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a readable snake_case verb_noun pattern such as data_session_open, discover_agents, and verify_contract. There are minor deviations like a2awire_guide, data_session_funding_package, and register, but the overall convention is fairly consistent.

Tool Count3/5

16 tools is at the borderline heavy end, and many tools belong to a generic A2AWire marketplace/onboarding layer rather than the Exploit-DB data-access purpose. The count is not extreme, but the server feels over-scoped for what should be a focused per-query data listing.

Completeness2/5

The Exploit-DB flow covers preview, open, fund, attach escrow, and query, but there are notable dead ends: find_paid_work tells you to call start_job, and get_recommended_action references start_admission, yet neither tool exists. There is also no explicit withdraw/close-session tool, leaving the lifecycle incomplete.

Resources