Skip to main content
Glama

vuln-intel

by io.github.rozetyp
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

search_vulns

Read-only

Search the CVE corpus — one entry point, three retrieval modes picked from your arguments:

  - query=  a concept / technique / weakness (e.g. "SSO SAML assertion replay",
            "deserialization gadget chain", "server-side request forgery cloud metadata").
            By default it FUSES full-text keyword search AND semantic mechanism-search, so you
            don't have to guess whether your phrasing is lexical or conceptual. order='relevance'
            = keyword only; order='similarity' = semantic only; order='severity' = fuse then
            rank P1>P4.
  - cve_id= a seed CVE (e.g. "CVE-2021-44228") -> its mechanism-siblings across OTHER products
            (the "what else looks like this?" move).
  - days= and/or product= (with NO query) -> the recent high-risk window (KEV / P1-P2 /
            high-EPSS); product= is CPE-name-resolved and each hit carries match.products.

Returns ranked cards (each with priority/KEV/EPSS/CWE) + total_matches for coverage; the
'mode' field reports which retrieval ran. You decide which matches matter.
(For a specific product's version-resolved vulns use hunt_plan; for how bugs like this were
FOUND in disclosed reports use find_attack_approaches.)

Args:
    query: free-text concept / keyword / CWE.
    cve_id: seed CVE for semantic mechanism-sibling search.
    cwe: optional weakness filter, e.g. "CWE-502" or "502".
    days: recency filter on publication date.
    product: product filter for the recent-window mode (CPE-name-resolved, carries provenance).
    order: relevance | similarity | severity (default: fused when query is text).
    limit: max results.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cweNo
daysNo
limitNo
orderNo
queryNo
cve_idNo
productNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false; the description goes further by disclosing that query defaults to fusing lexical+semantic retrieval, that order toggles which retrieval runs, that severity ranks P1>P4, and that product= is CPE-resolved with match.products provenance. It does not state pagination or result-size limits, so it falls short of the top of the scale.

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?

Front-loaded with the mode taxonomy before the flat arg list, and the sibling routing is placed at the end as a footer. It is longer than strictly necessary — 'You decide which matches matter' and some parenthetical asides are filler — but nearly every sentence adds routing or behavioral value.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing the ranked cards, the priority/KEV/EPSS/CWE fields, total_matches for coverage, and the mode field that reports which retrieval ran. Gaps remain on how cwe combines with query and on result-size behavior, minor for a read-only search tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the schema exposes bare titles only, so the description carries the full burden. It nonetheless defines all seven parameters, including accepted value forms (e.g. 'CWE-502' or '502'), the enum-like order values, and the non-obvious constraint that days/product require NO query.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (search the CVE corpus) and enumerates the three retrieval modes keyed to distinct argument shapes. It explicitly differentiates itself from siblings hunt_plan and find_attack_approaches by naming the scenario each covers.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives explicit when-to-use routing: query for concept/keyword search with fusion defaults, cve_id for the 'what else looks like this' mechanism-sibling move, and days/product-only for the recent high-risk window. It also names two alternatives and the condition that selects each.

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

All vuln-intel toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources