Resolve a vendor or product prefix to NVD CPE names and CVE counts. Use first, then pass its vendor/product values to search_cves or its vendor to get_vendor; display names are not CPE names.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| term | Yes | At least two characters of a vendor or product prefix, e.g. microsoft or windows server. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / properties / items / items / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "vendor",
- "product",
- "count"
-]New value: +[
+ "vendor",
+ "count"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that: it discloses what the tool returns (CPE names and CVE counts) and warns that display names are not CPE names, a real input pitfall. Missing only edge behavior such as empty-result handling.
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?
Two sentences, zero waste, with the core purpose front-loaded and the workflow instruction and naming caveat following. Nothing is padded or repeated.
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?
With an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description supplies what's still needed: the workflow position and the display-name caveat. The one gap is the unresolved relationship to find_package, which an agent selecting between the two would want stated.
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 coverage is 100% and the 'term' parameter already documents the two-character prefix requirement with examples. The description's 'vendor or product prefix' phrasing reinforces the schema but adds no syntax or matching-rule detail beyond it, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Resolve a vendor or product prefix to NVD CPE names and CVE counts.' The output shape (CPE names + CVE counts) is concrete. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the similarly named sibling find_package, leaving a real ambiguity an agent must resolve elsewhere.
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?
'Use first, then pass its vendor/product values to search_cves or its vendor to get_vendor' explicitly positions this as the entry point of a workflow and names downstream tools. It gives clear context but no exclusion rules, and the find_product vs find_package choice is never addressed.
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.