Skip to main content
Glama

Epss

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Get Epss

get_epss
Read-onlyIdempotent

EPSS exploit-probability for one or more CVEs. Returns each CVE's EPSS score (0-1 = probability it will be exploited in the wild in the next 30 days) and percentile (how it ranks vs all CVEs). Use to gauge real-world exploit likelihood and prioritize patching — complements CVSS severity (a high-severity CVE with low EPSS may be lower urgency than a moderate-severity one with high EPSS).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cveYesA CVE id like "CVE-2021-44228", or several comma-separated (e.g. "CVE-2021-44228,CVE-2014-0160").

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "cve": "CVE-2021-44228"
+  },
+  {
+    "cve": "CVE-2021-44228,CVE-2014-0160,CVE-2017-5645"
+  }
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint as true and destructiveHint as false. The description adds value by clarifying the return format (score and percentile) and explaining the meaning of EPSS and its relationship to CVSS, which aids in interpretation.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and output format, followed by a brief use case. No redundant information; every sentence contributes value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given a single parameter, no output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description adequately explains what the tool returns and how to interpret results. It could mention potential input limits (e.g., maximum CVEs per request) but is still complete for typical usage.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add additional meaning to the 'cve' parameter beyond what the schema already provides (single CVE or comma-separated list). The description focuses on output rather than input details.

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 explicitly states the tool retrieves EPSS exploit-probability for one or more CVEs, specifying the score range (0-1) and percentile. It clearly identifies the resource (EPSS for CVEs) and the action (get/return), distinguishing it from siblings like top_exploited which focus on top vulnerabilities.

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 advises using the tool to gauge real-world exploit likelihood and prioritize patching, and explains how it complements CVSS severity. While it does not list specific alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, the context provided is sufficient for an agent to understand its primary use case.

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

All Epss toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools occupy overlapping functional space: ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx right now, and bet_research, polymarket_edges, and polymarket_arbitrage all target Polymarket opportunity detection. The detailed descriptions help, but an agent can easily select the wrong query/research or prediction-market tool.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most names are readable snake_case and clusters like polymarket_* and pipeworx_* are internally consistent. However, the overall set mixes verb_object names (compare_entities, resolve_entity), bare verbs (forget, subscribe), and noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_alerts, top_exploited), so there is no unifying naming convention.

Tool Count2/5

At 33 tools, the count exceeds the reasonable threshold for a focused server, and the problem is worse because the server is named Epss while most tools are Pipeworx data, Polymarket, memory, and subscription tools. A focused EPSS server would need only a handful of tools; this is a grab bag.

Completeness2/5

For the EPSS purpose implied by the server name, only get_epss and top_exploited exist, with no CVE search, historical score context, or vulnerability-management tooling. The unrelated research, memory, and prediction-market tools are individually fairly complete, but they do not fill the gap for the apparent EPSS use case.

Resources