Skip to main content
Glama

DataNexus MCP

by com.datanexusmcp

security_fetch_cisa_kev

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check whether a CVE is in the CISA Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) catalog. Read-only. No side effects. Idempotent. cve_id: CVE identifier in format CVE-YYYY-NNNNN e.g. CVE-2021-44228. Required. Returns in_kev (bool), date_added, due_date, ransomware_use, and notes from the CISA KEV catalog. KEV status answers 'Is this being actively exploited?' — a critical triage question not available in NIST NVD. Verified source: CISA KEV catalog (updated daily, cached). Use security_fetch_cve_detail for full CVE severity. Use security_fetch_cve_epss for exploit probability. If this tool's response does not serve the user's need, call report_feedback with feedback_type="agent_gap", tool_id="security_fetch_cisa_kev", intended_query="{what the user needed}", gap_description="{what was missing or wrong in the result}".

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cve_idYesCVE identifier e.g. CVE-2021-44228. Required.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description confirms these traits with 'Read-only. No side effects. Idempotent.' and adds context about the data source ('Verified source: CISA KEV catalog, updated daily, cached'). No contradictions.

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?

The description is efficiently packed with purpose, safety, parameters, return fields, sibling comparisons, source info, and feedback instruction. Front-loaded with core purpose, every sentence earns its place.

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 presence of an output schema, the description still lists return fields and explains the tool's role in the CVE triage flow. It provides complete context for a simple single-parameter tool, including fallback direction.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with a description for cve_id. The description reinforces the format and required nature, and provides an example (CVE-2021-44228), adding value beyond the schema alone.

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 states the verb 'Check', the resource 'CISA KEV catalog', and the scope 'whether a CVE is in it'. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like security_fetch_cve_detail and security_fetch_cve_epss.

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?

The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance: for checking KEV status (active exploitation). It also specifies alternatives: use security_fetch_cve_detail for full severity and security_fetch_cve_epss for exploit probability. Includes a feedback fallback mechanism.

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

All DataNexus MCP 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Tools are grouped into clear domain prefixes (compliance, domain, frontend_security, etc.) with distinct purposes. Minor overlap exists between frontend_security_detect_typosquatting and security_detect_typosquatting, but descriptions clarify the different scope.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case. Irregularities like 'fetch' vs 'audit' and two 'detect_typosquatting' tools exist, but overall naming is predictable within domains.

Tool Count3/5

55 tools is high for a single server given the breadth of domains. Some redundancy (e.g., two typosquatting tools) suggests possible trimming, but the count is justified by the wide coverage.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers key operations across domains like compliance, domain, security, legal, and nonprofit. Minor gaps exist, such as limited frontend audit beyond package.json and no general-purpose code scanning.

Resources