Skip to main content
Glama

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), FIRST.org EPSS (exploit-probability score and percentile), and the CISA Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog (active wild exploitation status). 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

TableJSON 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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: payment amount/mechanism, that failures still return a normal tool result with isError:true and a PaymentRequired object, where the settlement receipt appears, and the 404-on-missing-CVE case. This is exactly the operational detail an agent needs before invoking.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Despite covering payment, routing, exclusions and error behavior, it is front-loaded and segmented with explicit labels (SIBLING DIFFERENTIATION, USAGE EXCLUSIONS, BEHAVIOR). Every sentence carries operational value with 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?

For a paid, multi-source enrichment tool with no output schema, the description covers invocation, routing, payment/auth, and both success and failure outcomes. 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.

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% and the single cve_id parameter is already fully documented in the schema, including the strict CVE-YYYY-NNNN format. The description adds no format or constraint 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+resource ('enriched CVE lookup') and enumerates the exact data sources combined (NVD, EPSS, CISA KEV). It explicitly names the siblings it must not be confused with (get_ioc_context, get_threat_indicators), so an agent can route correctly without opening any schema.

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?

Provides explicit when ('specific CVE lookups') plus named alternatives for other cases (get_ioc_context for IP/domain/hash, get_threat_indicators for bulk feeds) and exclusions (no wildcard search, no threat-actor profiling). This is a complete routing decision.

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