CVE risk prioritization combining CVSS, EPSS, KEV catalog, exploit availability. Returns weighted priority score with patching SLA.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cve_id | No | ||
| cvss_score | No | ||
| epss_score | No | 0-1 EPSS probability | |
| in_kev_catalog | No | ||
| public_exploit | No | ||
| internet_facing | No | ||
| affected_systems | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It states that the tool combines specific inputs and returns a weighted priority score with a patching SLA, giving some insight. However, it does not describe the score scale, handling of missing inputs, or whether external data fetching occurs, leaving gaps.
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?
The description is a single, cohesive sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and then lists key inputs and the output, earning its place efficiently.
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?
Given 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides only a high-level overview. It does not explain which inputs are required (all are optional per schema), how the score is computed or interpreted, or how the output structure looks, making it incomplete for confident invocation.
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?
Schema description coverage is low (14%), so the description must compensate. It names several inputs (CVSS, EPSS, KEV, exploit availability) but omits 'internet_facing' and 'affected_systems'. It adds context on how sources combine but lacks detail on weighting logic and parameter format.
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 indicates the tool's function: CVE risk prioritization combining multiple data sources (CVSS, EPSS, KEV, exploits) and returning a weighted score with a patching SLA. Though it uses a noun phrase rather than a direct verb, it is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools focused on other security/compliance areas.
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 the tool should be used for CVE risk prioritization, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools, though the niche is evident from the tool name and sibling list.
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 focuses on a distinct security domain: attack surface, CVE scoring, compliance frameworks (DORA, ISO, NIS2), incident response, phishing, risk matrix, metrics, and threat landscape. There is no functional overlap that would confuse an agent.
All tool names follow a consistent lowercase snake_case convention and are descriptive noun phrases. The pattern is predictable, though it does not use a uniform verb_noun structure, which is a minor stylistic deviation.
With 12 tools, the server is well-scoped for a cybersecurity compliance and risk platform. Each tool adds meaningful functionality without redundancy, keeping the set manageable and purposeful.
The toolset covers major compliance assessments (DORA, ISO 27001, NIS2), incident response, risk analysis, and threat intelligence. Minor gaps exist, such as no dedicated business continuity or broader policy generation tool, but the core security lifecycle is well represented.