Skip to main content
Glama

Crypto, web, finance and app data tools

CVE Details

cve_details

Details of a CVE by id: description, CVSS score, severity and vector, CWE, whether it is in CISA's Known Exploited list, affected products (CPE) and references, from NVD with CVE.org fallback. Use for security triage and patch prioritisation.

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_id": "<cve_id>"
    },
    "name": "cve_details"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cve_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the data source and fallback chain ('from NVD with CVE.org fallback'), which is genuine behavioral context, but says nothing about what happens when an ID is unknown, rate limits, or response shape.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource and identifier, then the payload fields, then the source and use case. No filler and nothing repeated from the name.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description still summarizes them for selection purposes. For a single-parameter read tool this is nearly complete; the only real omission is the identifier format and not-found behavior.

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?

One parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. 'By id' does clarify that the argument is a CVE identifier, but it omits the expected format (CVE-YYYY-NNNN) and validity handling, so compensation is only partial.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Names a specific verb+resource ('Details of a CVE by id') and enumerates the returned fields, so the purpose is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the closely related sibling package_vulnerabilities, leaving the agent to infer which one to call.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Use for security triage and patch prioritisation' gives an implied usage context but states no exclusions and never names the alternative (package_vulnerabilities) for vulnerability-by-package lookups. Usage is inferable rather than instructed.

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.

Resources