Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Action1 MCP Server

Action1 MCP Server

by ComTom777
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

get_vulnerability

Read-only

Retrieve details of a specific CVE in an organization by providing the org ID and CVE ID.

Instructions

Get details of one CVE in an organization.

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": {
      "org_id": "<org_id>",
      "cve_id": "<cve_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_vulnerability"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cve_idYes
org_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. Beyond that, the description adds only the org-scoping constraint and says nothing about what a miss returns, whether the CVE must exist in the org, or any error semantics. Value added over structured fields is minimal.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single short sentence with the resource front-loaded and zero filler. It is arguably terse to the point of under-specification, but nothing in the sentence is wasted.

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?

For a simple two-param read tool with readOnlyHint and no output schema, the description is minimally viable. It omits any indication of what detail fields are returned or how a not-found CVE is surfaced, which would help an agent decide between this and the list/search siblings.

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 0%, so the schema documents nothing about cve_id or org_id. The description partially compensates by implying CVE identifier and organizational scope, which maps to both required params, but it gives no format (e.g., CVE-YYYY-NNNN) or org-id sourcing detail.

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+resource combination: fetch details for exactly one CVE scoped to an organization. The singular 'one CVE' implicitly contrasts with list_vulnerabilities, though the sibling is never named. An agent can tell what it does without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no explicit routing to list_vulnerabilities for bulk retrieval or to list_vulnerability_endpoints for affected hosts. The agent must infer that this is the single-item lookup from the name alone.

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