Skip to main content
Glama

nvd

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Recent Cves

recent_cves
Read-onlyIdempotent

Get CVEs published within a date range (use ISO 8601 format, e.g., "2024-01-01T00:00:00.000Z"). Returns CVE IDs, descriptions, and severity. Use to track newly disclosed vulnerabilities.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
endYesEnd date in ISO 8601 format (e.g. "2024-01-31T23:59:59.000Z")
limitNoMaximum number of results to return (default 10, max 2000)
startYesStart date in ISO 8601 format (e.g. "2024-01-01T00:00:00.000Z")

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cvesYesList of CVEs published within the date range
returnedYesNumber of CVEs returned in this response
total_resultsYesTotal number of CVEs published in the date range

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": {
+    "cves": {
+      "description": "List of CVEs published within the date range",
+      "items": {
+        "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"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "returned": {
+      "description": "Number of CVEs returned in this response",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "total_results": {
+      "description": "Total number of CVEs published in the date range",
+      "type": "number"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "total_results",
+    "returned",
+    "cves"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "end": "2024-01-31T23:59:59.000Z",
+    "start": "2024-01-01T00:00:00.000Z"
+  },
+  {
+    "end": "2024-12-15T23:59:59.000Z",
+    "limit": 100,
+    "start": "2024-12-01T00:00:00.000Z"
+  }
+]
  3. 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, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it returns CVE IDs, descriptions, and severity, and scopes results to a publication date range. This adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations without contradiction.

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 brief and front-loaded with the primary action ('Get CVEs published within a date range'). Every sentence serves a purpose: scope, return contents, and intended use. No wasted words.

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 list tool with a fully documented schema, annotations, and an output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, return fields, and use case. It could mention default/max limit behavior, but that is already in the schema, so the description is sufficiently complete.

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%; each parameter (start, end, limit) has a description. The tool description reinforces the ISO 8601 format but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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 clearly states 'Get CVEs published within a date range,' using a specific verb and resource with a clear scope (date range). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_cve (single CVE) and search_cves (keyword search) by emphasizing the temporal filter.

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 provides explicit use context: 'Use to track newly disclosed vulnerabilities.' It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the date-range scoping plus the stated use case gives clear guidance.

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