cisa-cybersecurity-mcp-server

cisa_search_kev

cisa_search_kev

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search the CISA Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog across every entry in the cached snapshot. Filter by vendor or product using CISA's own labels, by name substring, by CWE, by the date an entry was added, by due date, by overdue status, by ransomware linkage, by the three-day forensic-triage tier, or by which binding operational directive the entry cites. Results are paged and sortable by due date or date added. Vendor and product values are CISA's free-text labels, not CPE names — call cisa_list_reference for the field vocabulary before guessing one. The catalog records additions but carries no per-record modified timestamp, so dateAddedFrom answers "what is new since D" while a revised due date on an existing entry is not detectable from the feed.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`cwe`	No	Exact CWE identifier, e.g. CWE-362. Excludes the 175 entries with no CWEs.
`limit`	No	Maximum entries per page.
`order`	No	Sort direction.	desc
`cursor`	No	Opaque pagination cursor from a previous call. Omit for the first page.
`sortBy`	No	Field to sort by.	dateAdded
`overdue`	No	True selects entries whose due date is strictly before the echoed asOf date.
`product`	No	Case-insensitive substring of CISA's own product label. 694 distinct values.
`dueAfter`	No	Earliest due date, inclusive, YYYY-MM-DD.
`directive`	No	Which directive the entry cites. "none" selects the 1,277 entries citing neither.
`dueBefore`	No	Latest due date, inclusive, YYYY-MM-DD.
`ransomware`	No	True selects entries CISA has linked to ransomware campaigns (360 entries).
`cveIdPrefix`	No	Year scope for the CVE ID, e.g. CVE-2026.
`dateAddedTo`	No	Latest date added, inclusive, YYYY-MM-DD.
`nameContains`	No	Strict token match over the vulnerability name and short description: every token must appear. No fuzzy fallback.
`dateAddedFrom`	No	Earliest date added, inclusive, YYYY-MM-DD.
`vendorProject`	No	Case-insensitive substring of CISA's own vendor label. 283 distinct values.
`forensicTriage`	No	True selects the BOD 26-04 three-day forensic-triage tier (58 entries).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`cap`	No	The page limit that was applied.
`asOf`	No	The UTC date overdue and daysUntilDue were computed against, YYYY-MM-DD.
`error`	No	Present when the call failed. Absent on success.
`shown`	No	Entries returned on this page.
`cursor`	No	Opaque cursor for the next page. Absent when this is the last page.
`notice`	No	Guidance when nothing matched.
`catalog`	No	Which catalog snapshot answered this call.
`hasMore`	No	Whether more matches exist beyond this page.
`results`	No	Matching KEV entries for this page.
`truncated`	No	True when the page limit capped this result.
`totalCount`	No	Total matches before paging.
`appliedFilters`	No	The filters the server actually applied, as it parsed them.
`snapshotCaveat`	No	Disclosure that additions are queryable but revisions are not detectable.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedSep 20, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Even with readOnlyHint and idempotentHint already set, the description adds substantial behavioral context: the catalog is a cached snapshot, results are paged/sortable, vendor/product are free-text labels rather than CPE names, name matching is strict with no fuzzy fallback, and there is no modified timestamp so revised due dates are not detectable. These are meaningful caveats beyond what annotations or schema provide.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: main purpose first, filter categories, pagination/sorting, vocabulary warning, and the timestamp limitation. It is front-loaded with the core action and maintains relevance despite the tool's 17 parameters.

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 large parameter surface and the presence of a full output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers catalog scope, filter semantics, paging/sorting, vocabulary sourcing, and known data limitations. Nothing essential for correct invocation 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 value beyond the schema by explaining high-level semantic constraints: CISA labels are not CPE names, dateAddedFrom tells 'what is new since D' but misses revised due dates, and the strict token-match behavior for nameContains. It does not re-document every parameter but enriches the most ambiguous ones.

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: 'Search the CISA Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog across every entry in the cached snapshot.' It then enumerates the filter dimensions (vendor, product, CWE, dates, ransomware, directive, triage tier), making the tool's role unambiguous and clearly distinct from sibling tools like cisa_search_ics_advisories or cisa_get_alerts.

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 and importantly tells the agent to call cisa_list_reference for the field vocabulary before guessing vendor/product values. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus each sibling, but the KEV-specific scope and the explicit reference to a sibling tool provide adequate 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.