Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

PG1 Sovereign Threat Intelligence

by io.github.Project-Gifted1
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

get_cve_details

PG1 Sovereign Threat Intelligence: enriched CVE lookup combining NVD (description, CVSS score/vector) and the CISA Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog (active wild exploitation status). The epss field (FIRST.org EPSS exploit-probability score and percentile) is present only when this server serves EPSS in paid responses. Payment required: $0.01 via x402, sent in params._meta["x402/payment"] (the PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header is also accepted), or a valid Gumroad license key (X-API-KEY header). SIBLING DIFFERENTIATION: Use ONLY for specific CVE lookups. Do NOT use for IP/domain/hash enrichment (use get_ioc_context) or bulk feed ingestion (use get_threat_indicators). USAGE EXCLUSIONS: Does not support wildcard search or threat-actor dossier profiling. BEHAVIOR: If payment is missing or fails, returns a normal tool result with isError: true, the x402 v2 PaymentRequired object in structuredContent and the same JSON in content[0].text; on success the settlement receipt is in result._meta["x402/payment-response"]. Returns 404 if CVE is not found.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cve_idYesMandatory official CVE identifier string strictly formatted as 'CVE-YYYY-NNNN' (e.g., 'CVE-2021-44228').

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / cve_id / description
      Previous value: -"Official CVE identifier formatted as 'CVE-YYYY-NNNN' (e.g., 'CVE-2021-44228')."New value: +"Mandatory official CVE identifier string strictly formatted as 'CVE-YYYY-NNNN' (e.g., 'CVE-2021-44228')."
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / cve_id / description
      Previous value: -"CVE identifier, e.g. 'CVE-2021-44228'."New value: +"Official CVE identifier formatted as 'CVE-YYYY-NNNN' (e.g., 'CVE-2021-44228')."
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does: payment amount and mechanism ($0.01 via x402 in params._meta, header or Gumroad key), failure behavior (isError:true with PaymentRequired in structuredContent and content text), success receipt location, and 404 on not-found. This is unusually complete disclosure for a mutation-free paid lookup.

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?

Front-loaded with the operation and its sources, then sibling differentiation and behavioral notes in clearly labeled blocks. Dense but each sentence (payment, failure mode, 404) carries information an agent needs; no filler.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description compensates by describing what is returned (NVD + KEV, conditional EPSS), the error/structuredContent shape, and the settlement receipt path. An agent can invoke and interpret this 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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage — the schema already documents the strict 'CVE-YYYY-NNNN' format. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource (enriched CVE lookup) and names the exact data sources combined: NVD description/CVSS and CISA KEV exploitation status, plus conditional EPSS. This clearly distinguishes it from the many sibling get_* and check_* tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly scopes usage: 'Use ONLY for specific CVE lookups,' with named alternatives for the two adjacent cases — get_ioc_context for IP/domain/hash enrichment and get_threat_indicators for bulk feed ingestion. Adds exclusions for wildcard search and threat-actor profiling, leaving nothing to inference.

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

All PG1 Sovereign Threat Intelligence toolsInspect
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