Skip to main content
Glama

ContrastAPI

by com.contrastcyber

KEV Detail

kev_detail
Read-onlyIdempotent

Look up CISA KEV (Known Exploited Vulnerabilities) full record for a CVE. Returns federal patch deadline (due_date), CISA-specified required_action remediation, known ransomware association, vendor/product, the CISA-given common name (e.g. 'Log4Shell'), CISA-reported CWE list, plus lifecycle metadata: date_updated (when CISA last revised the entry), date_removed (set when CISA removed the CVE from the catalog — null while still active), and updated_at (our DB sync freshness). Returns 404 when the CVE is not in the KEV catalog — use cve_lookup for non-KEV CVEs. Best follow-up after cve_lookup or cve_search(kev=true) when an in_kev=true CVE is identified; chain with cwe_lookup on each returned CWE to investigate the weakness category. Free: 30/hr, Pro: 500/hr. Returns {cve_id, vendor_project, product, vulnerability_name, date_added, due_date, required_action, known_ransomware_use, notes, cwes, date_updated, date_removed, updated_at, verdict, next_calls}.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cve_idYesCVE identifier in format CVE-YYYY-NNNNN (e.g. 'CVE-2021-44228', 'CVE-2024-3094')

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds valuable behavior beyond that: states 404 behavior, explains date_removed is null while active, and clarifies updated_at as 'our DB sync freshness'. No contradiction 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?

The description is a dense paragraph but every sentence adds value—field semantics, usage direction, and rate limits. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose in the first sentence. Slightly longer than strictly necessary, but efficient overall.

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 the tool's complexity (many return fields, conditional null values, 404 behavior, integration with sibling tools) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it returns, how it behaves on missing CVEs, and when to use it. No significant gaps.

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?

There is only one parameter, cve_id, and the schema already provides a full description with format and examples (CVE-2021-44228). The description adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema covers, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 'Look up CISA KEV (Known Exploited Vulnerabilities) full record for a CVE', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by stating 'use cve_lookup for non-KEV CVEs' and framing itself as a follow-up to cve_lookup or cve_search(kev=true).

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Best follow-up after cve_lookup or cve_search(kev=true) when an in_kev=true CVE is identified'. It also names an alternative ('use cve_lookup for non-KEV CVEs') and suggests chaining with cwe_lookup. Rate limits ('Free: 30/hr, Pro: 500/hr') add operational context.

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