Retrieve CVE report records using route IDs, filters, pagination, and headers to access vulnerability data.
Retrieve records Calls GET /r/cve/report. Provide route IDs in path_params, filters and pagination in query, and any required request headers in headers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| headers | No | ||
| path_params | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state the exact endpoint and HTTP method, and 'Retrieve' implies a read operation. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, error behavior, pagination semantics, or whether any values are affected, leaving significant behavioral context undisclosed.
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 short and front-loaded with the core operation. The phrase 'Retrieve records' is somewhat redundant given the GET call, but overall the guidance is compact and easy to scan. Every sentence serves a purpose.
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?
The tool has four generic parameters, no annotation coverage, and 0% schema description coverage. While an output schema exists, the description does not specify which route IDs are valid, what filters and pagination parameters are supported, which headers are required, or how authentication is handled. This is insufficient for reliable invocation without external API knowledge.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so this dimension relies on the description. The description does add meaning by mapping the generic containers: route IDs to path_params, filters/pagination to query, and required headers to headers. It does not detail exact parameter names or formats, but it meaningfully compensates for the empty schema documentation.
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 identifies a specific HTTP verb (GET) and resource path (/r/cve/report), making the operation clear. However, 'Retrieve records' is generic and does not explicitly differentiate this tool from the many sibling report/query tools, though the endpoint path itself provides some uniqueness.
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 gives construction instructions (route IDs in path_params, filters/pagination in query, headers in headers) but no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, so an agent cannot decide between this and sibling report tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.