search_by_productFind CVEs affecting a specific product and version. Useful for vulnerability assessment of software components.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results | |
| vendor | No | Vendor name filter (e.g., 'apache', 'microsoft') | |
| version | No | Specific version to check (e.g., '2.4.49') | |
| product_name | Yes | Product name to search (e.g., 'apache', 'nginx') | |
| version_operator | No | Version comparison operator |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as pagination, rate limits, or result format, so it only minimally adds to what annotations provide.
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 only two sentences, with no unnecessary words. Both sentences contribute to understanding the tool's purpose and typical use, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, all documented) and strong annotations (read-only), the description is adequate. It conveys the core purpose and use case, while the schema covers parameter details. The lack of an output schema is offset by the clear implication that the tool returns CVE data.
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 description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description only mentions product and version conceptually, which doesn't add new meaning beyond the schema.
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 the tool finds CVEs for a specific product and version, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from generic search tools by emphasizing specificity, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like search_cve.
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 gives a clear context for use: vulnerability assessment of software components. It implies the tool is for targeted CVE lookups but does not provide exclusions or mention alternative tools, so it doesn't fully meet the 5-criteria.
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 have clearly distinct purposes, but a few pairs overlap: get_current_step vs get_progress, search_cve vs search_by_product, and describe_capabilities vs get_my_capabilities. The descriptions provide enough detail to differentiate them, but agents could still occasionally misselect.
Names overwhelmingly follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern (get_*, list_*, search_*, start_*, etc.). Minor deviations like 'diff' and 'search' (single-word) and 'batch_search' (compound modifier) are predictable and don't disrupt the overall consistency.
With 30 tools, the server is on the heavier side. The broad scope (legal intelligence, CVE data, full workflow engine) justifies many tools, but some are internal or niche (probe_corpus, recommend_subagents) and could be hidden. It's borderline between well-scoped and excessive.
The legal and CVE domains are well-covered: search, provision lookup, validation, diff, coverage, and detailed CVE enrichment. Workflow management is end-to-end. However, get_regulatory_deadlines is referenced by get_regulatory_intelligence_status but not exposed in the toolset, leaving a notable gap.