Skip to main content
Glama

Mitre Cwe

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Category

category
Read-onlyIdempotent

"What CWEs fall under [category]" / "list weaknesses in the [X] family" / "memory safety weaknesses" / "input validation weaknesses" — fetch a CWE category record (a thematic grouping of related CWEs like "Memory Safety", "Input Validation", "Cryptographic Issues"). Returns the category description plus member CWE IDs.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoCategory name
cwe_idNoCWE identifier
statusNoStatus of the CWE record
descriptionNoCategory description
membershipsNoCategory memberships

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint. Description adds that it returns category description and member CWE IDs, providing useful behavioral context beyond annotations.

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?

Description is a single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's function and output. Some redundancy in listing example categories, but overall it is concise and front-loaded.

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?

For a simple lookup tool with one parameter and comprehensive annotations, the description covers the tool's purpose, input style, and output. It does not detail error cases or non-existent IDs, but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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 has 0% description coverage, so description must compensate. It implies the 'id' parameter is a CWE category ID via examples (e.g., CWE-1004) but does not explicitly describe the parameter format or constraints, offering partial support.

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?

Description clearly states the tool fetches a CWE category record, listing weaknesses in a family. Uses specific verbs like 'fetch' and 'returns', and distinguishes from siblings like 'weakness' which likely returns a single weakness.

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?

Description provides example queries ('What CWEs fall under [category]') and explains the tool's purpose, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives.

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

All Mitre Cwe 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Only 7 of 38 tools are specific to CWE (weakness, children, parents, etc.), while the rest are generic data query, prediction market, and utility tools. This creates massive overlap and confusion: an agent looking for CWE data will encounter many unrelated tools with similar generic names like ask_pipeworx, deep_research, etc.

Naming Consistency2/5

CWE-specific tools use a consistent noun pattern (weakness, children, parents, etc.), but the remaining tools mix snake_case, camelCase, and no clear pattern (e.g., ask_pipeworx, bet_research, generate_llms_txt). The overall naming is inconsistent.

Tool Count1/5

38 tools is far too many for a CWE server. The vast majority are unrelated to CWE, making the tool surface bloated and unfocused. A concise set of ~5-10 CWE-specific tools would be appropriate.

Completeness3/5

The CWE-specific tools (weakness, category, view, children, parents, descendants, relationship) cover the main use cases for querying the CWE database. However, the server also includes many unrelated tools that dilute its purpose, making it feel incomplete for someone strictly needing CWE data.

Resources