cisa-cybersecurity-mcp-server

cisa_search_ics_advisories

cisa_search_ics_advisories

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search the CISA industrial control system advisory corpus — 3,926 CSAF 2.0 documents covering PLC, HMI, SCADA, building-automation, and medical-device products from 2010 onward. Filter by vendor, product, CVE, CVSS range, severity band, critical-infrastructure sector, advisory series, publication date, or revision date, and run full-text search over advisory titles and product names. Sector filtering reaches only advisories that carry a sector note, which begins in 2017; the response reports how many documents a sector filter can never match. Returns advisory IDs for cisa_get_advisory, the CVEs each advisory covers, and the source URL and attribution every advisory response carries.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`q`	No	Full-text search over advisory titles, vendor names, and product names. Tokens are AND-combined; FTS5 operators in the input are neutralized rather than honored.
`cve`	No	Exact CVE membership. The corpus covers 12,321 distinct CVEs.
`limit`	No	Maximum advisories per page.
`order`	No	Sort direction. Under relevance, desc means most relevant first.	desc
`cursor`	No	Opaque pagination cursor from a previous call. Omit for the first page.
`sector`	No	Critical-infrastructure sector, matched against the normalized sector set. Multiple is the sentinel the corpus uses for an advisory affecting many sectors.
`series`	No	Advisory series: ICSA (3,738 documents) or ICSMA medical devices (188).
`sortBy`	No	Field to sort by. relevance requires q and ranks by FTS5 bm25.	revised
`vendor`	No	Case-insensitive substring of a vendor label. Vendor names are unnormalized upstream — the same company appears under several spellings — so this is substring, not exact.
`cvssMax`	No	Maximum value of the advisory's maximum CVSS base score, inclusive.
`cvssMin`	No	Minimum value of the advisory's maximum CVSS base score, inclusive.
`product`	No	Case-insensitive substring of a product name.
`severity`	No	Severity band of the advisory's maximum CVSS score.
`publisher`	No	coordinator selects CISA-authored advisories (2,863); other selects republished vendor advisories (1,063).
`revisedTo`	No	Latest current release date, inclusive, YYYY-MM-DD.
`publishedTo`	No	Latest initial release date, inclusive, YYYY-MM-DD.
`revisedFrom`	No	Earliest current release date, inclusive, YYYY-MM-DD.
`publishedFrom`	No	Earliest initial release date, inclusive, YYYY-MM-DD.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`cap`	No	The page limit that was applied.
`error`	No	Present when the call failed. Absent on success.
`shown`	No	Advisories returned on this page.
`cursor`	No	Opaque cursor for the next page. Absent when this is the last page.
`mirror`	No	Which index state answered this call.
`notice`	No	Guidance when nothing matched.
`hasMore`	No	Whether more matches exist beyond this page.
`results`	No	Matching advisories for this page.
`truncated`	No	True when the page limit capped this result.
`totalCount`	No	Total matches before paging.
`cvssCoverage`	No	Disclosure of derived-band and no-score coverage under a score filter.
`appliedFilters`	No	The filters the server actually applied.
`sectorCoverage`	No	Disclosure of how many advisories a sector filter can never match.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedSep 20, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Even with readOnlyHint and idempotentHint already supplied, the description adds meaningful non-obvious behavior: sector filtering works only on advisories with a sector note beginning in 2017, and the response explicitly reports how many documents cannot match a sector filter. It also discloses what results contain, including advisory IDs, CVEs, source URL, and attribution. This is valuable transparency beyond the annotations and does not contradict them.

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?

The description is efficient and well-structured: purpose and scope first, then the filter surface, then the sector caveat, then return values. Despite the large parameter count, every sentence earns its place and no filler is present.

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 read-only search tool with rich annotations and a full output schema, the description provides the missing operational context an agent needs: corpus scope, the sector-filter blind spot, and how results connect to cisa_get_advisory. Pagination, ordering, and defaults are already covered by the input schema, so nothing essential is left unexplained.

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%, with every one of the 18 parameters documented in detail, so the baseline is 3. The description enumerates filter categories but does not add per-parameter semantics beyond the schema. One minor divergence: the description says full-text search covers 'advisory titles and product names,' while the q parameter schema says it also covers vendor names.

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 the specific verb 'Search' and names the exact resource: the CISA industrial control system advisory corpus. It immediately distinguishes this tool from siblings by specifying the corpus size, document format, product coverage, and available filters. The return-value sentence further clarifies that this is a search/indexing tool feeding cisa_get_advisory.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives clear context for when to use the tool: querying the ICS advisory corpus with structured filters and full-text search. It also suggests a workflow by returning advisory IDs intended for cisa_get_advisory. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives such as cisa_search_kev or cisa_check_cve_status, so it stops short of full alternative routing guidance.

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

All cisa-cybersecurity-mcp-server tools Inspect

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.