Skip to main content
Glama

Mitre Cwe

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Weakness

weakness
Read-onlyIdempotent

"What is CWE-[N]" / "look up CWE [name]" / "details on [weakness]" / "explain XSS / SQL injection / buffer overflow" / "what kind of security flaw is [X]" — fetch a single MITRE CWE (Common Weakness Enumeration) record with description, examples, mitigations, related attacks, references. Use for security analysis, vulnerability triage, threat-modeling, secure-coding training. Example IDs: 79 (XSS), 89 (SQL injection), 787 (out-of-bounds write).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesCWE id (e.g. "79" or "CWE-79")
viewNoOptional view id to retrieve view-specific info.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoWeakness name
cwe_idNoCWE identifier
statusNoStatus of the CWE record
descriptionNoDetailed description of the weakness
membershipsNoCategory memberships
weaknessabsNoAbstract weaknesses

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds that the tool returns descriptions, examples, mitigations, related attacks, references, offering behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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 concise and front-loaded with sample queries, making purpose immediately clear. Every sentence adds value, though slightly longer than minimal. Could be tighter but remains efficient.

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 that an output schema exists (so return values need not be detailed), the description covers the tool's purpose, content returned, and usage contexts completely. No gaps for this complexity level.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions. The tool's description adds example IDs and mentions optional view, but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3.

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 single MITRE CWE record with details like description, examples, mitigations, related attacks, references. It provides example queries and lists use cases (security analysis, vulnerability triage, etc.). Distinct from siblings; no other CWE lookup tool exists.

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 explicitly suggests when to use this tool (security analysis, triage, training) and provides example IDs. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternative sibling tools, though none are direct CWE lookups.

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