Skip to main content
Glama

isMalicious threat intelligence for AI agents

Look up a CVE

get_cve
Read-onlyIdempotent

One CVE by id: description, severity, CVSS score and vector, EPSS exploitation probability, CISA KEV status (date added, due date, required action, known ransomware use), exploitation evidence where recorded (CISA SSVC none/poc/active, Exploit-DB ids, Nuclei template, the number of Metasploit modules, Microsoft's exploited flag), affected packages with introduced and fixed versions (OSV.dev, first 5), vendor advisories (CSAF, first 3), external identifiers (GHSA, PYSEC, GO, EUVD ids, bundle advisories such as USN or RHSA, first 6), the products the CNA itself declares affected in the CVE record with their version ranges (often the only product data before NVD analyses a CVE; as many as fit), publication dates and references (NVD, KEV, EPSS, CERT-FR, GitHub advisories, Exploit-DB), and an attribution block: MITRE's CVE designation and licence and the NVD notice, to keep with any CVE text you reproduce, and the sources the answer draws on. Also takes an external id (GHSA-…, PYSEC-…, GO-…, RUSTSEC-…, EUVD-…, USN-…, RHSA-…, ALSA-…, a Metasploit module path…): one CVE comes back as its record with resolvedFrom, several as a list of candidate CVE ids to look up. No recorded exploitation evidence does not mean the CVE is not exploited. This is the only CVE lookup path; do not guess other routes. Costs one request of the monthly quota.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesCVE identifier, e.g. CVE-2021-44228, or an external id naming it, e.g. GHSA-jfh8-c2jp-5v3q, PYSEC-2021-101, EUVD-2025-1234, USN-7000-1. Case-insensitive.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / id / description
      Previous value: -"CVE identifier, e.g. CVE-2021-44228. Case-insensitive."New value: +"CVE identifier, e.g. CVE-2021-44228, or an external id naming it, e.g. GHSA-jfh8-c2jp-5v3q, PYSEC-2021-101, EUVD-2025-1234, USN-7000-1. Case-insensitive."
    • changedInput schema / properties / id / pattern
      Previous value: -"^[Cc][Vv][Ee]-\\d{4}-\\d{4,}$"New value: +"^(?:[Cc][Vv][Ee]-\\d{4}-\\d{4,}|(?:[Gg][Hh][Ss][Aa]|[Pp][Yy][Ss][Ee][Cc]|[Gg][Oo]|[Rr][Uu][Ss][Tt][Ss][Ee][Cc]|[Pp][Ss][Ff]|[Ee][Ee][Ff]|[Jj][Ll][Ss][Ee][Cc]|[Rr][Ss][Ee][Cc]|[Hh][Ss][Ee][Cc]|[Oo][Ss][Ee][Cc]|[Dd][Rr][Uu][Pp][Aa][Ll]|[Cc][Uu][Rr][Ll]|[Bb][Ii][Tt]|[Mm][Aa][Ll]|[Aa][Ss][Bb]|[Pp][Uu][Bb]|[Oo][Ss][Vv]|[Gg][Ss][Dd]|[Aa][Zz][Ll]|[Cc][Gg][Aa]|[Mm][Ii][Nn][Ii]|[Ee][Uu][Vv][Dd]|[Gg][Cc][Vv][Ee]|[Aa][Ll][SsBbEe][Aa]|[Rr][LlXx][SsBbEe][Aa]|[Rr][Hh][SsBbEe][Aa]|[UuLl][Ss][Nn]|[Dd][Ss][Aa]|[Dd][Ll][Aa]|[Dd][Tt][Ss][Aa]|(?:[Oo][Pp][Ee][Nn])?[Ss][Uu][Ss][Ee]|[Mm][Gg][Aa][Ss][Aa]|[Oo][Ee][Ss][Aa]|[Cc][Ll][Ss][Aa]|[Ee][Ll][Ss][Aa]|[Aa][Ll][Aa][Ss](?:2|2022|2023)?|[Ee][Dd][Bb]|[Zz][Dd][Ii]|[Uu][Bb][Uu][Nn][Tt][Uu]|[Dd][Ee][Bb][Ii][Aa][Nn]|[Aa][Ll][Pp][Ii][Nn][Ee]|[Bb][Ee][Ll][Ll]|[Ee][Cc][Hh][Oo]|[Rr][Oo][Oo][Tt])-[A-Za-z0-9:._+-]{1,80}|[Mm][Ss]\\d{2}-\\d{3}|(?:[Ee][Xx][Pp][Ll][Oo][Ii][Tt]|[Aa][Uu][Xx][Ii][Ll][Ii][Aa][Rr][Yy]|[Pp][Oo][Ss][Tt])/[A-Za-z0-9_./-]{3,180})$"
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, it discloses quota cost ('one request of the monthly quota'), external-id resolution behavior, candidate-list fallback, and an important caveat that absence of exploitation evidence does not mean the CVE is not exploited. These are substantive behavioral details not covered by annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose is front-loaded, but the description then becomes a very long, dense enumeration of returned fields and source-specific details. Given that there is no output schema the return inventory has value, but it is overstuffed for tool-selection purposes.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what comes back, and it does so comprehensively: severity, CVSS, EPSS, KEV, exploitation evidence, affected packages, advisories, identifiers, CNA products, dates, references, and attribution. It also covers external-id behavior and quota cost.

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%, so the schema already documents the single id parameter. The description adds meaning beyond syntax by explaining that external ids may resolve directly to one CVE with resolvedFrom or return multiple candidate CVE ids.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'One CVE by id', followed by a detailed inventory of the record returned. It also states this is the only CVE lookup path, which helps distinguish it from sibling tools such as recent_cves and exploited_cves.

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?

It gives clear usage context for CVE ids and external ids, explains the one-result versus candidate-list behavior, and says not to guess other lookup routes. It does not explicitly compare against each sibling, but the guidance is strong enough for correct selection.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.