Get recently published or updated vulnerabilities across all tracked sources. Set a limit from 1 to 50 results.
Get the most recently published/updated vulnerabilities, correlated across all sources tracked by the platform
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of results to return (default: 10, max: 50) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | ||
| vulnerabilities | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds that results are the most recently published/updated and correlated across sources, providing extra behavioral context. However, it does not clarify what 'correlated' entails (e.g., deduplication) or mention pagination.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, with no redundant words or filler. It efficiently conveys the essential information.
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?
For a simple list tool with one well-documented parameter and an output schema present, the description adequately conveys what is returned (recent vulnerabilities) and the source scope. The term 'correlated' is slightly ambiguous but not blocking. It could optionally mention sorting, but the output schema likely covers return details.
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?
The input schema fully documents the single 'limit' parameter with a description, default, and max. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate given the schema coverage is 100%.
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?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clear resource ('most recently published/updated vulnerabilities') and adds the distinctive scope 'correlated across all sources tracked by the platform.' This differentiates it from siblings that target specific vendors, CWEs, CAPECs, or CVEs.
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 implies this is a general feed for recent vulnerabilities, but it does not explicitly state when to use this versus the sibling tools (e.g., 'for a specific CVE use get_cve'). Guidance is only implicit, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.