Crypto, web, finance and app data tools

Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (CISA)

exploited_vulnerabilities

Check CVEs against CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog or search it by vendor/product: date added, remediation due date, ransomware use, CWE and required action. Use to prioritise patching.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "exploited_vulnerabilities"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`q`	No
`cve`	No
`days`	No
`limit`	No
`ransomware`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 26, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

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 discloses some output content (date added, remediation due date, etc.) and implies a read-only lookup, but does not mention rate limits, authentication, or other behavioral traits like whether the data is live or cached.

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 with no wasted words; the core purpose and key data fields are front-loaded, followed by a brief usage note.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Although an output schema exists (so return values need not be explained), the description does not adequately cover the five parameters with 0% schema coverage, and with no annotations it should provide more behavioral context. It is incomplete for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%. The description hints at the q parameter ('search by vendor/product') and cve parameter ('Check CVEs'), but does not explain the days, limit, or ransomware parameters, leaving most parameters undocumented.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('Check CVEs', 'search it') and resource ('CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog'), and lists key data fields. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like cve_details or 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 Guidelines3/5

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

It says 'Use to prioritise patching', giving a clear usage context, but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites or exclusions.

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

All Crypto, web, finance and app data tools 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?