CVE MCP Server

get_cve

Fetch the official CVE.org record by ID to check CISA KEV exploitation status and EPSS probability, so you can prioritize vulnerability fixes by real-world risk.

Instructions

Fetch the official CVE record from CVE.org (CVE Services API) by ID, e.g. CVE-2021-44228. Each result includes exploited (listed in CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities = attacked in the wild now) and epss (FIRST probability of exploitation in the next 30 days, 0-1).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "get_cve"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`raw`	No	Return the full CVE JSON 5.x record instead of a summary

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.2.0Nov 3, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It helpfully discloses data provenance (official CVE.org record) and explains the semantics of the enrichment fields, including the EPSS 0-1 scale, 30-day window, and KEV meaning. It says nothing about error behavior for unknown IDs, rate limits, or read-only guarantees.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and source, then the payload clarification. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise lack.

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?

For a two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the source, the ID format, and the meaning of key returned fields. It falls short only on failure modes and on the difference in shape between the summary and raw responses.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 50%: `raw` is documented in the schema, while `id` has only a regex pattern. The description compensates for `id` by supplying a concrete format example (CVE-2021-44228), but it never explains what `raw` returns beyond the schema's own text, which the schema already covers.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource — 'Fetch the official CVE record from CVE.org (CVE Services API) by ID' — and gives a concrete example ID. The 'by ID' lookup framing implicitly separates it from search_cves and check_package, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied rather than stated: an exact-ID lookup rather than a search or package check. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no direction to search_cves when the ID is unknown.

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

Deploy Server