Keyword-search CVEs via the free NVD CVE API 2.0, returning id, base score, severity and published date. Read-only; price 0.0 (free).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results to return (optional) | |
| keyword | Yes | Search keyword |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It explicitly discloses read-only behavior, zero cost, and the return fields, which are valuable behavioral traits. However, it does not mention rate limits, pagination, or potential external API dependencies beyond the API version, so it is not fully transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short, information-dense sentences. Every clause adds value: it specifies the action, source, return fields, read-only status, and price. There is no fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple search tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, return fields, and safety profile. It lacks deeper details like response format or error semantics, but given the simplicity, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% (both 'keyword' and 'limit' have descriptions). The description adds little beyond the schema, only implying that the keyword is used for searching. It does not clarify limit defaults or behavior, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without adding significant extra meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb ('Keyword-search'), a specific resource ('CVEs'), and the source ('free NVD CVE API 2.0'), plus the return fields (id, base score, severity, published date). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cve_lookup_get_cve or cve_lookup_cvss_parse, which serve different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for keyword-based CVE searches and notes the free/read-only nature, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives (e.g., cve_lookup_get_cve for specific CVE IDs). The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools are clearly distinguished by domain prefixes (e.g., bid_watch, grant_watch) and specific action verbs. However, the high number of similarly structured watch tools could still cause confusion, though descriptions clarify exact purposes.
Every tool follows a consistent `domain_subdomain_action` pattern with underscores, e.g., `agent_audit_query`, `bid_watch_search`. Even long names like `commerce_catalog_agent_readiness_score` adhere to this structure.
With 147 tools, the server is far too broad, covering weather, carbon estimates, domain intel, and more—well beyond its stated 'Japan public-data ledgers' scope. This sheer volume overwhelms agents and dilutes focus.
The server offers many read-only tools for Japanese public data (bids, grants, licenses, etc.), but lacks create/update/delete operations for those domains. Additionally, numerous unrelated tools (e.g., carbon estimates, weather) feel tacked on, leaving gaps in core coverage.