Skip to main content
Glama
Cyreslab-AI

Shodan MCP Server

get_kev_cves

Retrieve Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) from CISA to identify actively exploited security flaws for threat intelligence and cybersecurity research.

Instructions

Get Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) from CISA

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum number of results to return (default: 10)

Implementation Reference

  • Handler logic for the 'get_kev_cves' tool. Extracts the optional 'limit' parameter, calls the CVEDB client's getKevCves method, and returns the JSON-formatted response as MCP content.
    case "get_kev_cves": {
      const limit = request.params.arguments?.limit ? Number(request.params.arguments.limit) : 10;
    
      try {
        const kevCves = await cvedbClient.getKevCves(limit);
        return {
          content: [{
            type: "text",
            text: JSON.stringify(kevCves, null, 2)
          }]
        };
      } catch (error) {
        if (error instanceof McpError) {
          throw error;
        }
        throw new McpError(
          ErrorCode.InternalError,
          `Error getting KEV CVEs: ${(error as Error).message}`
        );
      }
  • Tool definition including name, description, and input schema in the ListTools response.
    {
      name: "get_kev_cves",
      description: "Get Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) from CISA",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          limit: {
            type: "number",
            description: "Maximum number of results to return (default: 10)"
          }
        }
      }
  • Supporting method in CVEDBClient class that makes the API call to retrieve KEV CVEs from https://cvedb.shodan.io/cves?is_kev=true with optional limit.
     */
    async getKevCves(limit: number = 10): Promise<any> {
      try {
        const response = await this.axiosInstance.get("/cves", {
          params: { is_kev: true, limit }
        });
        return response.data;
      } catch (error: unknown) {
        if (axios.isAxiosError(error)) {
          throw new McpError(
            ErrorCode.InternalError,
            `CVEDB API error: ${error.response?.data?.error || error.message}`
          );
        }
        throw error;
      }
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool retrieves data but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only (implied by 'Get'), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the return format looks like (e.g., list of vulnerabilities). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to interact with it effectively.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema) and high schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context about the tool's behavior (e.g., return format, data source specifics) and doesn't help differentiate from siblings, making it incomplete for optimal agent use despite the simple structure.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'limit' parameter clearly documented. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining default behavior or constraints, but since the schema is comprehensive, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as it doesn't need to compensate for gaps.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) from CISA'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_cves_by_epss' or 'search_cves', which might also retrieve vulnerability data but with different scopes or filters.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_cves_by_epss' and 'search_cves' that likely handle vulnerability data, there's no indication of when this tool is preferred (e.g., for exploited vulnerabilities only) or any prerequisites, leaving usage unclear.

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/Cyreslab-AI/shodan-mcp-server'

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