Skip to main content
Glama

classify_vulnerability

Classify vulnerabilities by type, severity, and OWASP category based on description and component details for security assessment and threat detection.

Instructions

Classify a vulnerability by type, severity, and OWASP category.

Args: description: Description of the vulnerability. affected_component: Component or service affected. has_exploit: Whether a known exploit exists. network_accessible: Whether the vuln is network-accessible. auth_required: Whether authentication is required to exploit.

Behavior: This tool is read-only and stateless — it produces analysis output without modifying any external systems, databases, or files. Safe to call repeatedly with identical inputs (idempotent). Free tier: 10/day rate limit. Pro tier: unlimited. No authentication required for basic usage.

When to use: Use this tool for security assessment, threat detection, or vulnerability analysis. Suitable for automated security scanning and risk evaluation.

When NOT to use: Do not rely solely on this tool for production security decisions. Always combine with manual security review. Behavioral Transparency: - Side Effects: This tool is read-only and produces no side effects. It does not modify any external state, databases, or files. All output is computed in-memory and returned directly to the caller. - Authentication: No authentication required for basic usage. Pro/Enterprise tiers require a valid MEOK API key passed via the MEOK_API_KEY environment variable. - Rate Limits: Free tier: 10 calls/day. Pro tier: unlimited. Rate limit headers are included in responses (X-RateLimit-Remaining, X-RateLimit-Reset). - Error Handling: Returns structured error objects with 'error' key on failure. Never raises unhandled exceptions. Invalid inputs return descriptive validation errors. - Idempotency: Fully idempotent — calling with the same inputs always produces the same output. Safe to retry on timeout or transient failure. - Data Privacy: No input data is stored, logged, or transmitted to external services. All processing happens locally within the MCP server process.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
descriptionYes
affected_componentNo
has_exploitNo
network_accessibleNo
auth_requiredNo
api_keyNo
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses side effects (none, read-only, stateless), authentication needs (none for basic, pro requires API key), rate limits (free 10/day, pro unlimited), error handling (structured errors), idempotency, and data privacy. This is comprehensive and exceeds requirements.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is well-structured with clear sections and front-loaded purpose. However, there is redundancy between the 'Behavior' and 'Behavioral Transparency' sections, and the length could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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?

Despite covering purpose, parameters, and behavior thoroughly, the description lacks explicit output specification (e.g., what the classification returns). With no output schema, this is a notable gap. Overall, it provides a good foundation but misses key details for a complete understanding.

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?

The description lists all parameters except api_key (present in schema) with brief descriptions, partially compensating for 0% schema coverage. However, meanings for boolean fields are not elaborated, and one parameter is missing from the textual description. It adds some clarity but not enough to fully compensate.

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?

The description clearly states the verb 'classify' and resource 'vulnerability', specifying classification by type, severity, and OWASP category. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like lookup_cve and analyze_password_strength by focusing on classification rather than lookup or analysis of other aspects.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description includes explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections, providing context for security assessment and cautioning against sole reliance for production decisions. However, it does not compare directly with sibling tools to guide selection, missing a chance to differentiate.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/CSOAI-ORG/cybersecurity-ai-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server