cve-intelligence

query_package

CVEs affecting one open-source package, by purl (pkg:npm/lodash) or ecosystem + name (Maven names are group:artifact). Returns the CVE list KEV-first with each OSV version range VERBATIM: events plus one render-safe projection — fixed (the upgrade targets) or affected_through (the last VULNERABLE version, never a fix). This tool does NOT evaluate version membership — compare versions on your side with your ecosystem’s own semantics. Covers CVE-linked, GitHub-reviewed OSS advisories via OSV.dev; absence is not evidence of safety.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	Package name, verbatim (e.g. @babel/core, org.jenkins-ci.main:jenkins-core)
`purl`	No	Package URL, e.g. pkg:npm/lodash or pkg:maven/org.apache.logging.log4j/log4j-core
`ecosystem`	No	OSV ecosystem (npm, PyPI, Maven, Go, crates.io, Packagist, RubyGems, NuGet, …) or purl type (pypi, cargo, composer, gem, golang, …)

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 carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses the response format (KEV-first, verbatim OSV ranges), the meaning of 'fixed' vs 'affected_through', the limitation that it does not evaluate version membership, and the caveat that absence is not safety evidence.

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?

Though dense, every sentence earns its place: purpose, input forms, output format, semantics, and caveats. The description is well-structured with an initial purpose, then key nuances, and ends with coverage limitation.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explains the return structure in detail (CVE list, events, projections) and critical behavioral constraints. It covers input combinations, version handling, and data source scope, making it highly complete for a query tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already covers all parameters (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the relationship between purl and ecosystem/name, giving concrete examples (pkg:npm/lodash, Maven group:artifact), and emphasizing verbatim package naming.

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 identifies the tool as querying CVEs for a single open-source package, with specific input modes (purl or ecosystem+name). The phrase 'one open-source package' distinguishes it from broader sibling tools like search_cves or get_scoreboard.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description states the exact input forms (purl vs ecosystem+name) with examples, implying when to use this tool. It also provides a critical caveat about not evaluating version membership. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative sibling tools or when not to use this one.

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

All cve-intelligence 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

A4.3/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool serves a clearly distinct purpose: get_cve retrieves a single CVE record, get_scoreboard returns a fixed report, get_updates streams publication changes, query_package filters by package, and search_cves provides full-text/structured search. There is no meaningful overlap or ambiguity in their intended use cases.

Naming Consistency4/5

The naming follows a consistent lowercase verb_noun pattern (get_*, query_*, search_*). Three tools use 'get_' while two use 'query_' and 'search_', which are semantically distinct actions but still predictable. The deviation is minor and does not impair usability.

Tool Count5/5

With 5 tools, the set is well-scoped and each tool earns its place for a CVE intelligence server. It covers retrieval, search, package-specific queries, a status report, and an update feed without redundancy or unnecessary bulk.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the core workflows for CVE intelligence: single-record lookup, generalized search with filters, package-specific vulnerability queries, a high-level scoreboard report, and a change stream. No obvious gaps are visible for the stated domain.

Resources

Need Help?