Security Intel MCP

CVE Lookup

cve_lookup

Read-onlyIdempotent

Look up a CVE by ID and get a compact summary: description, CVSS score & severity, vector, CWE weakness, publish date, references — plus whether it is on the CISA Known-Exploited list (actively exploited in the wild) and its EPSS exploit-probability. Sources: NVD (NIST), CISA KEV, FIRST EPSS.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`cve_id`	Yes	CVE identifier, e.g. CVE-2021-44228 (case-insensitive; a bare 2021-44228 also works).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	No
`cwe`	No
`cvss`	No
`status`	No
`sources`	No
`published`	No
`provenance`	No	Where this answer came from. served_at is when Datakoot answered (UTC); upstream lists the official sources consulted. Datakoot may serve a briefly cached copy, so the source's own observation can be older than served_at.
`references`	No
`description`	No
`last_modified`	No
`known_exploited`	No
`exploit_probability`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 8, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / provenance

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Where this answer came from. served_at is when Datakoot answered (UTC); upstream lists the official sources consulted. Datakoot may serve a briefly cached copy, so the source's own observation can be older than served_at.",
+  "properties": {
+    "may_be_cached": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "publisher": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "served_at": {
+      "format": "date-time",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "upstream": {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 3, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / cve_id / description

Previous value: -"e.g. CVE-2021-44228"New value: +"CVE identifier, e.g. CVE-2021-44228 (case-insensitive; a bare 2021-44228 also works)."

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {
+    "cvss": {},
+    "cwe": {},
+    "description": {},
+    "exploit_probability": {},
+    "id": {},
+    "known_exploited": {},
+    "last_modified": {},
+    "published": {},
+    "references": {},
+    "sources": {},
+    "status": {}
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedSep 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is handled. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the aggregation sources (NVD/NIST, CISA KEV, FIRST EPSS), which tells the agent the data is a merged external snapshot. It does not mention rate limits, caching, or behavior for an unknown CVE ID.

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?

One dense sentence front-loads the purpose and enumerates the returned fields, followed by a short source-attribution sentence. No filler, no restatement of the title, and the highest-value information leads.

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

Completeness4/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, yet the description usefully previews the payload shape. Combined with annotations covering safety, this is nearly complete; only error behavior for an unresolvable CVE ID is unaddressed.

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% and the schema already documents the accepted formats (CVE-2021-44228, case-insensitivity, bare 2021-44228). The description adds nothing further about the parameter, so the baseline 3 for fully-covered schema 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?

States a specific verb (look up) and resource (CVE by ID) and enumerates the exact payload returned: CVSS, vector, CWE, dates, references, KEV status, EPSS. It implicitly differentiates from siblings known_exploited and epss_score by presenting itself as a single aggregate lookup, but never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied — the required cve_id makes it obvious this is called when a CVE identifier is in hand. There is no guidance on when to prefer this aggregate lookup over the narrower known_exploited or epss_score siblings, and no exclusions or prerequisites stated.

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

All Security Intel MCP tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.