Skip to main content
Glama

EchelonGraph CVE & Exposure

CWE and its CVEs

get_cwe
Read-onlyIdempotent

One CWE (weakness class) and the CVEs classified under it. Returns cwe_id, name and description (from the MITRE CWE catalog EchelonGraph embeds, version catalog_version), total (the active CVEs in EchelonGraph's feed that an NVD, GitHub or CVE.org record classifies under it, rejected and reserved records left out), and cves, one page of 50: each with cve_id, severity, cvss_v3_score, echelongraph_score, echelongraph_severity, score_assessed, kev_listed, published and a shortened description. order says how the rows are sorted (CISA-KEV-listed first, then EchelonGraph score); an answer without order does not state its order, and the note says so. page is the page served, page_size its size and max_page the last page the API serves: a later page is answered as max_page, so past max_page pages total counts CVEs no page lists. echelongraph_score is EchelonGraph's score only when score_assessed is true; the note labels each row that is NOT YET SCORED. A total of 0 says that no CVE in EchelonGraph's feed is classified under that CWE, not that none exists. Pass cwe_id like CWE-79 (or 79) and an optional page (1-200). Its structured result carries state (measured), measured_at (null), method, coverage (total, returned, page, page_requested, page_size, max_page), freshness (null) and notes, with data equal to the API's JSON; the result's last text block repeats it without data (the first text block) and without the note's sentences (the text block before it), with which notes ends. Past 30,000 characters of JSON, the first text block holds data cut to fit, and the note says what the cut leaves out and where to read it (TEXT CUT); data in the structured result always holds it whole.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNopage of 50 CVEs (default 1, max 200)
cwe_idYesa CWE ID, e.g. CWE-79 (or 79)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the read-only, idempotent and open-world annotations, the description discloses important behavioral details: pagination past max_page is coerced to max_page, total 0 has a specific meaning, echelongraph_score is only meaningful when score_assessed is true, and the structured result's handling of text-block truncation is explained.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is front-loaded with purpose, but it is excessively long and runs several dense clauses together. Much of the return-field and structured-result detail duplicates the output schema, and the text-block mechanics add significant length without proportionate selection benefit.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's complexity, annotations, and existing output schema, the description is more than complete. It covers output structure, pagination edge cases, scoring caveats, truncation behavior, and result-shape details that an agent would need to interpret responses 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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description repeats accepted cwe_id formats and the page range without adding substantive meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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?

The description opens with a precise verb-and-resource statement: 'One CWE (weakness class) and the CVEs classified under it.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_cve and search_cves by specifying it returns one CWE plus its classified CVEs.

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?

Usage is implied by the return contents and the required cwe_id parameter, but the description never explicitly states when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_cve or search_cves, nor does it name any exclusions or prerequisites.

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.