Look up known CVE vulnerabilities for an npm package+version or a specific CVE ID. Returns CVSS scores, descriptions, and fix versions from NVD and OSV. Results are cached for 10 minutes. Costs $0.01 USDC per call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses caching (10 minutes) and cost ($0.01 per call), which adds value beyond the basic purpose. It does not cover rate limits or auth, but for a simple read-only lookup, this is sufficient transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, each earning its place: first sentence states purpose, second adds detail, third adds behavioral notes. No wasted words, and critical info is front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers return values and behavioral aspects, but fails to explain how to provide the required input (package/version or CVE ID), given that the schema has no parameters. This omission makes the tool definition incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, but the description implies the tool accepts a package+version or CVE ID. This is a significant discrepancy; the description adds misleading information instead of clarifying how to provide input. With 0 parameters, baseline is 4, but the mismatch makes the description harmful, not helpful.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('look up') and the resource ('CVE vulnerabilities'), specifying the scope as either a npm package+version or a CVE ID. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like 'reputation_check' and 'secret_scan', which serve different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for vulnerability lookups by stating what it returns, but it does not explicitly provide when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives. Sibling tools are different, so the lack of exclusions is acceptable but not a strength.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: CVE lookup for software vulnerabilities, reputation check for IPs/domains, and secret scanning for credentials. No functional overlap exists.
All tools follow a consistent noun_verb pattern (cve_lookup, reputation_check, secret_scan), making the naming predictable and easy to understand.
With 3 tools, the server is well-scoped for a security analysis assistant, covering vulnerability lookup, IP/domain reputation, and secret detection without unnecessary bloat.
The tools cover three essential security areas, but common additions like malware hash lookup or threat intelligence feeds are missing, representing minor gaps in a broader security toolkit.