Skip to main content
Glama

Mitre Cwe

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Children

children
Read-onlyIdempotent

"CWEs derived from / under [N]" / "child weaknesses of [CWE]" / "more specific variants of [X]" — list immediate children of a CWE in the relationship tree. CWE is hierarchical; e.g. children of CWE-119 (memory bounds) include CWE-787 (out-of-bounds write) and CWE-125 (out-of-bounds read).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
childrenNoArray of child CWE records
parent_idNoParent CWE identifier

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint. Description adds value by explaining the hierarchical nature (immediate children vs. deeper hierarchy) and providing concrete examples, which goes 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is extremely concise (2 sentences + example), front-loaded with the key action and resource, and every part adds value. No wasted words.

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 tool's simplicity (1 param, output schema present, rich annotations), the description fully covers what the agent needs: purpose, parameter meaning, and behavioral context (hierarchy, immediate children). No gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

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

Although schema has 0% description coverage, the description fully explains the parameter 'id' through context ('CWEs derived from / under [N]') and an example ({'id': '79'}), making its purpose clear without needing additional schema text.

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 uses specific verbs ('list immediate children') and clearly identifies the resource (CWE in the relationship tree). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'descendants' by specifying 'immediate children' and providing an example hierarchy.

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 implies when to use (for immediate children) and hints at alternatives (e.g., 'descendants' for deeper traversal) via the hierarchical context, but lacks explicit when-not or alternative naming.

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