Unstuck

CVE Vulnerability Lookup

vulnerability_lookup

Read-onlyIdempotent

Look up a security vulnerability by CVE id, or search CVEs by keyword (product, library, attack; newest first): description, CVSS score and severity, published and modified dates, affected vendors/products, CWE weaknesses, known-exploited flag and reference links. Data source: NVD. This product uses data from the NVD API but is not endorsed or certified by the NVD. Price: $0.002 per successful call; failed calls are free. Free to try: a few calls a day without a key.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Max results for a keyword search. Default 5, max 10.
`cve_id`	No	Exact CVE id, e.g. "CVE-2021-44228". Give this or keyword.
`api_key`	No	Your Unstuck API key, if this connection has none. Leave empty to try free tools or to get a key and payment link.
`keyword`	No	Words to search CVE descriptions for, e.g. "log4j remote code execution".

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`order`	Yes	Keyword results are newest first unless NVD's rate limit forced the oldest page.
`notice`	Yes
`source`	Yes
`results`	Yes
`balance_usd`	Yes	Remaining prepaid balance, USD.
`charged_usd`	Yes	Amount charged for this call, USD.
`total_results`	Yes	Total matches in NVD (keyword searches may have more than returned).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 4, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / api_key

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Your Unstuck API key, if this connection has none. Leave empty to try free tools or to get a key and payment link.",
+  "maxLength": 200,
+  "type": "string"
+}

AddedOct 4, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-structured context: the NVD data source, a per-call price of $0.002 with free failed calls, and a keyless free tier.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The core purpose and search semantics are front-loaded in the first clause; the returned-fields list and pricing are compact. The mandatory NVD endorsement disclaimer is boilerplate that costs a sentence, but the rest earns its place.

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-value detail is not required, yet the description still enumerates the key fields (CVSS, severity, CWE, known-exploited). Combined with annotations covering safety and the description covering pricing and data provenance, an agent has what it needs to call correctly.

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% (limit default/max, cve_id pattern and example, keyword length and example, api_key purpose), so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no parameter syntax beyond what the schema already documents, matching the baseline 3.

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 ('look up'/'search') and resource (security vulnerability / CVEs), and clearly names both invocation modes (exact CVE id vs. keyword search). No sibling tool in the list covers CVEs, so it is trivially distinguishable.

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?

The two modes are named and the keyword example ('product, library, attack; newest first') hints at search semantics, but there is no explicit rule for choosing cve_id over keyword or any when-not guidance. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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

All Unstuck tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Give agents eyes on the webHosted screenshot MCP. Send a URL, get a pixel-perfect image. $0.002 per grab. Works with Claude, Cursor, and Codex.grabbit.liveAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?