query_cveLook up CVEs by ID to retrieve normalized records with affected files, version ranges, and fixing commits, using kernel.org records first and NVD as fallback.
Look up a CVE by id (kernel.org cve records first, NVD fallback). Returns a normalized record with affected files, version ranges, and fixing commits (R1/R3).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cveId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations the description carries the full burden. It discloses the source fallback behavior and the shape of the returned record (affected files, version ranges, fixing commits), which is real added context. It does not cover not-found behavior, rate limits, or auth needs, leaving a noticeable gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the lookup action and following immediately with the return contract. The trailing '(R1/R3)' is an opaque internal reference that spends tokens without conveying meaning to the agent.
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 no output schema, the description correctly fills the gap by enumerating the returned record's contents, and it explains the source resolution strategy. Missing error/not-found semantics and any indication of auth or limits keep it from being fully complete.
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 0%, so the description should compensate. It only says 'by id', and while the schema pattern reveals the expected CVE-YYYY-NNNN format, the description adds no meaning about the identifier beyond that. This is minimum-viable rather than enriching.
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?
Specific verb (look up) plus resource (a CVE by id) with an explicit data-source strategy, so the agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not name or contrast with any sibling (e.g. find_patches, cve_applicability), so it falls short of the 5 bar for sibling differentiation.
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 states a resolution order (kernel.org first, NVD fallback), which is helpful, but that is behavioral rather than usage guidance. There is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus its siblings, nor any prerequisite or exclusion conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.