Skip to main content
Glama

ContrastAPI

by com.contrastcyber

Get CVSS Details

get_cvss_details
Read-onlyIdempotent

Parse a CVSS v3.x vector string into a per-metric breakdown plus a recomputed base score. Returns the canonicalized vector, version (3.0 or 3.1), base_score, base_severity (NONE/LOW/MEDIUM/HIGH/CRITICAL), and the eight base metrics: attack_vector (NETWORK/ADJACENT_NETWORK/LOCAL/PHYSICAL), attack_complexity (LOW/HIGH), privileges_required (NONE/LOW/HIGH), user_interaction (NONE/REQUIRED), scope (UNCHANGED/CHANGED), and the three impact metrics confidentiality_impact / integrity_impact / availability_impact (NONE/LOW/HIGH each). When temporal/environmental metrics are explicit in the vector, temporal_score and environmental_score are populated separately. Use to translate raw CVSS strings into agent-friendly attributes without re-parsing the vector grammar yourself, and to verify upstream NVD scoring against the recomputed value. v2 vectors (AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/...) are rejected with 400 — read cvss_v2_vector from cve_lookup if you need v2 detail. Free: 30/hr, Pro: 500/hr. Returns {version, vector, base_score, base_severity, metrics: {attack_vector, attack_complexity, privileges_required, user_interaction, scope, confidentiality_impact, integrity_impact, availability_impact}, temporal_score, environmental_score, summary, verdict}.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
vectorYesCVSS v3.0 or v3.1 vector string, e.g. 'CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H'. v2 vectors are rejected — use the cvss_v2_vector field on cve_lookup if you need v2.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare this as readOnly and idempotent, and the description adds valuable context: v2 vectors are rejected with a 400 status, rate limits (Free: 30/hr, Pro: 500/hr) are stated, and the detailed return structure is outlined. It does not disclose error handling beyond v2 rejection, but the provided extras go 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?

The description is lengthy but well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. It packs substantial detail (output fields, usage, limitations, rate limits) without fluff. The density is high but each sentence earns its place, so it is concise in content despite its length.

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?

The description covers input requirements, output structure, error behavior for unsupported vectors, rate limits, and guidance for both parsing and verification use cases. Given the complexity of CVSS parsing and the rich output schema mentioned, this description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool effectively without additional external knowledge.

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?

The schema description for 'vector' already covers the parameter fully (coverage 100%), including the rejection of v2 vectors. The tool description repeats this information and adds an example, but does not fundamentally enrich the parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Parse a CVSS v3.x vector string into a per-metric breakdown plus a recomputed base score.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like cve_lookup or calculate_risk_score, which handle different aspects of vulnerability data.

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 guidance is provided: 'Use to translate raw CVSS strings into agent-friendly attributes without re-parsing the vector grammar yourself, and to verify upstream NVD scoring against the recomputed value.' It also names an alternative for v2 vectors: 'read cvss_v2_vector from cve_lookup if you need v2 detail.'

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

All ContrastAPI 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

A4.5/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, with differences between lookup/search/scan/audit for each domain. However, some overlap exists (e.g., email_mx vs email_security_posture, scan_headers vs contrast_scan) which could cause occasional confusion. Overall, boundaries are well-defined.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., cve_lookup, check_headers, bulk_cve_lookup) with all lowercase underscores. Variations like kev_detail or ssl_check are minor and still predictable. No chaotic mixing of conventions.

Tool Count4/5

54 tools is high but justified by the broad cybersecurity scope (CVE, ATLAS, D3FEND, Sigma, domain, email, IOC, scanning). Some redundancy exists (e.g., three email-related tools), but the count is not excessive given the API's comprehensive feature set.

Completeness5/5

The tool set thoroughly covers the threat intelligence and domain investigation lifecycle: CVE/KEV/exploit/CWE, ATLAS/D3FEND/Sigma, DNS/WHOIS/SSL/subdomains, email security, IOC enrichment, and active scanning. No significant gaps are apparent for the stated cybersecurity purpose.

Resources