Johto Data

Johto Data NVD CVE Lookup

record_vulnerability

Read-only

Official NIST NVD record by exact CVE ID, English description, CVSS metrics, weaknesses and CISA exploitation metadata. Not a vulnerability scan. NVD API attribution, no endorsement. Costs $0.0045 USDC per call via x402. Without payment, the call returns the x402 payment requirements; retry with an X-PAYMENT or PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header, or params._meta["x402/payment"].

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "cve": "<cve>"
    },
    "name": "record_vulnerability"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`cve`	Yes	Exact CVE identifier, such as CVE-2021-44228
`limit`	No	Maximum records returned, 1 to 50

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint/openWorldHint; the description adds the operationally decisive facts: $0.0045 USDC per call via x402, and that an unpaid call returns payment requirements to be retried with an X-PAYMENT or PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header. It also discloses provenance and the no-endorsement attribution constraint. This is exactly the context structured fields cannot carry.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the identity and scope before the cost and retry mechanics. No filler, no restatement of the tool name or title, and the payment procedure is compressed into a single actionable clause.

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?

For a read-only two-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description compensates well by naming the returned fields and covering cost, payment flow, and attribution. The remaining gap is failure behavior for a malformed or unknown CVE ID, which the agent would have to discover at call time.

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%, so both 'cve' and 'limit' are already documented, making 3 the baseline. The description does surface one channel absent from the schema, params._meta["x402/payment"], but says nothing about 'limit' — notably it does not explain why a single-CVE exact lookup would accept up to 50 records.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: fetch the official NIST NVD record for an exact CVE ID, and enumerates the payload (English description, CVSS metrics, weaknesses, CISA exploitation metadata). The negation 'Not a vulnerability scan' pre-empts the most likely misread, which no sibling tool name would resolve on its own.

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 'exact CVE ID' phrasing plus 'Not a vulnerability scan' tells the agent this is a point lookup keyed on a known identifier, not discovery or scanning. It also gives explicit recovery instructions for the payment failure path. It stops short of naming an alternative for the case where the agent only has a product name, but no sibling covers that either.

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

All Johto Data 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.

Resources

Need Help?