Skip to main content
Glama

nvd

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Get Cve

get_cve
Read-onlyIdempotent

Get full details for a specific CVE (e.g., "CVE-2021-44228"). Returns description, severity, CVSS score, affected products, and remediation info. Use when you need comprehensive vulnerability analysis.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cve_idYesCVE identifier, e.g. "CVE-2021-44228"

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesCVE identifier
statusYesVulnerability status
severityYesSeverity rating (CRITICAL, HIGH, MEDIUM, LOW, NONE)
publishedYesPublication date in ISO 8601 format
cvss_scoreYesCVSS base score (v3.1 preferred, falls back to v2)
descriptionYesEnglish description of the vulnerability
last_modifiedYesLast modification date in ISO 8601 format

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "cvss_score": {
+      "description": "CVSS base score (v3.1 preferred, falls back to v2)",
+      "type": [
+        "number",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "description": {
+      "description": "English description of the vulnerability",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "id": {
+      "description": "CVE identifier",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "last_modified": {
+      "description": "Last modification date in ISO 8601 format",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "published": {
+      "description": "Publication date in ISO 8601 format",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "severity": {
+      "description": "Severity rating (CRITICAL, HIGH, MEDIUM, LOW, NONE)",
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "status": {
+      "description": "Vulnerability status",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "id",
+    "published",
+    "last_modified",
+    "status",
+    "description",
+    "cvss_score",
+    "severity"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "cve_id": "CVE-2021-44228"
+  }
+]
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by specifying what information is returned (severity, CVSS, affected products, remediation), which enriches the behavioral contract beyond the 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?

Two concise sentences: the first states the core purpose and provides an example, the second lists return contents and gives a usage cue. 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 a single, well-documented parameter, a rich output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description covers the necessary context. It explains what the tool does, what it returns, and when to use it, which is fully adequate for a tool of this 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?

The sole parameter cve_id is fully described in the schema, including an example. The description does not add new semantic details beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb+resource ('Get full details for a specific CVE') and clearly distinguishes from search_cves by focusing on a single known CVE. It also lists the key fields returned, eliminating ambiguity.

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?

Provides a clear usage context ('Use when you need comprehensive vulnerability analysis'). It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the context is strong enough to differentiate from sibling tools like search_cves.

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

All nvd 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but some overlap exists (e.g., ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research and ask_pipeworx). The Polymarket tools are numerous but clearly differentiated.

Naming Consistency3/5

Mixed naming conventions: some tools start with verbs (ask_pipeworx, search_cves), others with nouns (entity_profile, recent_changes). Prefixes (pipeworx_, polymarket_) help but the pattern is not uniform.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is excessive for a single server, covering too many domains (NVD, Pipeworx, Polymarket, SEC, memory). This reduces coherence and makes it hard for agents to navigate.

Completeness4/5

Core workflows are covered: CVE lookup, company research, prediction market analysis, and data querying. However, there are minor gaps (e.g., no tool for editing stored data, no CVE metrics beyond search).

Resources