Skip to main content
Glama

DataNexus MCP

by com.datanexusmcp

security_fetch_cve_detail

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch full detail for a specific CVE by ID. Read-only. No side effects. Idempotent. cve_id: CVE identifier in format CVE-YYYY-NNNNN e.g. CVE-2021-44228. Required. Returns description, CVSS base score, affected products, patch references, and publish date. Use this when you have a CVE ID and need complete detail beyond what a package scan returns. Use security_fetch_package_vulnerabilities instead when you want all CVEs for a package version. Verified source: NIST NVD. 1-hour cache. If this tool's response does not serve the user's need, call report_feedback with feedback_type="agent_gap", tool_id="security_fetch_cve_detail", 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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. Description adds useful context: '1-hour cache' and 'Verified source: NIST NVD', which go beyond annotations.

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?

Well-structured, front-loaded with purpose, then details, usage, source, cache, fallback. Every sentence adds value, no fluff.

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?

Covers purpose, parameter, return fields summary, source, caching behavior, and feedback mechanism. Output schema exists, so return details are adequate. No 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3. Description adds format detail (CVE-YYYY-NNNNN) but mostly repeats schema. No significant added value beyond schema.

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?

Clearly states 'Fetch full detail for a specific CVE by ID' with verb and resource. Explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool security_fetch_package_vulnerabilities.

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 ('when you have a CVE ID') and when not to ('use security_fetch_package_vulnerabilities instead'). Includes a feedback fallback for mismatched needs.

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