Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
CVE Search MCP Server

CVE Search MCP Server

by Arnabdaz
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

search_vulnerabilities_by_product

Search for vulnerabilities by specifying vendor and product name, returning matched vulnerabilities with severity summary.

Instructions

Search vulnerabilities by vendor and product name (e.g., vendor="apache", product="struts"). WARNING: This can be slow (10-15 seconds). Use search_by_keyword for faster results. Returns matched vulnerabilities with severity summary.

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": {
      "vendor": "<vendor>",
      "product": "<product>"
    },
    "name": "search_vulnerabilities_by_product"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
vendorYes
productYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Discloses the tool can be slow (10-15 seconds) and returns a severity summary. Without annotations, this adds valuable behavioral context for a search tool, though it could mention other traits like idempotency or auth requirements.

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?

Extremely concise: three sentences covering purpose, a warning, and return summary. Information is front-loaded with no extraneous text.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Provides essential purpose and warning, but omits details on pagination, result format, and the 'limit' parameter meaning. Output schema exists but description only vaguely references severity summary. Adequate but with gaps.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, but description only explains 'vendor' and 'product' via example. The 'limit' parameter is not mentioned, leaving its meaning unclear. Fails to compensate for lack of schema descriptions.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Clearly states it searches vulnerabilities by vendor and product, with an example. Distinguishes from sibling search_by_keyword by noting it is slower, thus setting specific scope.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly says when to use (search by vendor/product) and warns about slowness, recommending an alternative (search_by_keyword) for faster results. Provides clear context for selection.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools