Skip to main content
Glama

EchelonGraph CVE & Exposure

Recent CISA KEV additions

kev_recent
Read-onlyIdempotent

The CVEs CISA has added to its Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) catalog, newest first, from EchelonGraph's copy of that catalog, which polls CISA's feed every 5 minutes. Each row in kev gives cve_id, kev_added_date (CISA's dateAdded), kev_due_date, kev_vendor, kev_product, kev_vuln_name and kev_ransomware (known ransomware-campaign use), EchelonGraph's severity, cvss_v3_score, epss_score, epss_percentile and eg_kev_tier for the CVE, and our_first_seen_kev, when EchelonGraph's poller first recorded the CVE entering the catalog (null where no such record exists). Filter by since and until (YYYY-MM-DD, inclusive, on kev_added_date; an RFC 3339 timestamp, such as the kev_added_date 2024-04-12T00:00:00Z that CVE records carry, is read as the date written in it, with the time and offset dropped, and anything else is refused), ransomware, and vendor (an exact, case-insensitive match on kev_vendor); page with limit (1 to 200, default 50) and cursor, passing back the previous page's next_cursor with the same filters. Rows within one date are ordered by cve_id. total counts the CVEs matching the filters; kev_listed_total counts every CVE EchelonGraph holds as KEV-listed, and catalog.catalog_count is CISA's own count in the catalog last fetched, so a gap between the two is entries not yet in EchelonGraph's CVE table, which no page returns. CISA's requiredAction and shortDescription are not returned. Its structured result carries state (measured), measured_at (our last successful fetch of CISA's feed, null when the API does not give it), method, coverage (the CISA KEV catalog: total, returned, kev_listed_total, catalog_count, limit, has_more), freshness (last_successful_fetch_at, catalog_version, date_released) 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. Cut, each row keeps fewer fields, cve_id, kev_added_date, kev_vendor and kev_ransomware at least, or rows are left out, and next_cursor still continues after the last row of the page, not of the text.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNopage size (default 50, max 200)
sinceNoearliest kev_added_date to include, YYYY-MM-DD (an RFC 3339 timestamp is read as the date written in it)
untilNolatest kev_added_date to include, YYYY-MM-DD (an RFC 3339 timestamp is read as the date written in it)
cursorNonext_cursor from the previous page
vendorNoCISA vendorProject, an exact case-insensitive match, e.g. 'Microsoft'
ransomwareNotrue: only CVEs with known ransomware-campaign use; false: only those without

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / since / description
      Previous value: -"earliest kev_added_date to include, YYYY-MM-DD (an RFC 3339 timestamp is read as its UTC date)"New value: +"earliest kev_added_date to include, YYYY-MM-DD (an RFC 3339 timestamp is read as the date written in it)"
    • changedInput schema / properties / until / description
      Previous value: -"latest kev_added_date to include, YYYY-MM-DD (an RFC 3339 timestamp is read as its UTC date)"New value: +"latest kev_added_date to include, YYYY-MM-DD (an RFC 3339 timestamp is read as the date written in it)"
  2. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / since / description
      Previous value: -"earliest kev_added_date to include, YYYY-MM-DD"New value: +"earliest kev_added_date to include, YYYY-MM-DD (an RFC 3339 timestamp is read as its UTC date)"
    • changedInput schema / properties / until / description
      Previous value: -"latest kev_added_date to include, YYYY-MM-DD"New value: +"latest kev_added_date to include, YYYY-MM-DD (an RFC 3339 timestamp is read as its UTC date)"
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world), and the description adds substantial operational context: the catalog is polled every 5 minutes, the gap between total, kev_listed_total and catalog_count means entries not yet in EchelonGraph's CVE table, requiredAction and shortDescription are not returned, and output is truncated past 30,000 characters with a documented fallback.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Purpose and scope are front-loaded, and most sentences carry load-bearing detail. But the single dense paragraph of run-on clauses is hard to scan, and the output/truncation discussion dominates roughly half the text, diluting the key selection signals.

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?

For a paged, filtered read tool with 6 optional params and an existing output schema, the description is thorough: it explains filter semantics, paging continuity, coverage counters, freshness metadata, the shape of the structured result and text blocks, and how truncation degrades fields. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: inclusive date semantics on kev_added_date, RFC 3339 timestamps being reduced to the written date while anything else is refused, exact case-insensitive vendor matching on kev_vendor, limit bounds/default, and the requirement to pass next_cursor back with the same filters. Ordering by cve_id within a date is also documented only here.

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 specific verb and resource: 'The CVEs CISA has added to its Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) catalog, newest first.' It also names the data source and refresh cadence, so an agent can immediately distinguish it from siblings like search_cves or cve_intel.

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 strongly implied by 'newest first' plus the since/until, ransomware and vendor filters, and paging mechanics are spelled out. However, the description never says when to choose this tool over siblings such as search_cves or cve_summary, and gives no explicit exclusions, so routing is left to inference.

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.