Skip to main content
Glama
K4PXD

cve-mcp-server

by K4PXD
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Batch triage CVEs (ranked)

cve_batch_triage
Read-onlyIdempotent

Triage up to 25 CVEs in one call and get a prioritized fix-first queue, using CVSS, EPSS, CISA KEV, and optional PoC/tooling signals.

Instructions

Triage a list of CVEs in a single call and get them back ranked by priority — turn a scan or findings list into an ordered "fix this first" queue without one tool call per CVE.

Each CVE is scored exactly as cve_triage does (CVSS + EPSS + CISA KEV + optional PoC/tooling), then results are sorted highest-priority first. EPSS is fetched for the whole batch in one request; unknown IDs are reported separately rather than failing the call.

Args:

  • cve_ids (string[]): 1-25 CVE identifiers.

  • check_pocs (boolean, default false): Add public-PoC availability (one extra lookup per CVE).

  • check_tooling (boolean, default true): Add Metasploit/Nuclei tooling (cached feeds; cheap across a batch).

  • response_format ('markdown'|'json', default 'markdown').

Returns (json): { requested, triaged, not_found[], results[] } where each result is { cve_id, priority, score, signals, description } sorted by score descending.

Examples:

  • "Rank these scan findings by what to patch first" -> cve_ids=[...].

  • "Triage this list but skip the PoC lookups" -> check_pocs=false.

Errors:

  • Malformed IDs are rejected up front; unresolvable-but-valid IDs come back in not_found[].

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cve_idsYesCVE identifiers to triage in one call (1-25), e.g. a scanner's findings list.
check_pocsNoAlso factor public PoC availability into each verdict (one extra lookup per CVE; off by default to keep batch runs fast).
check_toolingNoFactor packaged exploit tooling (Metasploit/Nuclei) into each verdict (feeds are cached, so this is cheap across a batch).
response_formatNoOutput format: 'markdown' (default, human-readable) or 'json' (full structured data).markdown

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavior: EPSS is fetched once per batch, unknown IDs are returned separately instead of failing, malformed IDs are rejected up front, and results are sorted by priority. This gives an agent an accurate model of how the call behaves and fails.

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 well structured with Args, Returns, Examples, and Errors sections, and the core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence. Every section adds useful information without unnecessary repetition or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description defines the return shape, sorting behavior, error handling, and example invocations. Combined with safety annotations, this provides everything an agent needs to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters and defaults. The description mostly paraphrases the schema, though it adds useful context about lookup costs and cached tooling feeds; this is nice but not a substantial semantic addition.

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 states a specific action and resource: triage a list of CVEs in a single call and return them ranked by priority. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools by emphasizing batch behavior and explicitly invoking cve_triage as the per-CVE scoring equivalent.

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 makes the batch use case clear with examples like ranking scan findings and skipping PoC lookups, and contrasts with performing one tool call per CVE. It does not explicitly state when to prefer cve_triage for a single CVE, but the context strongly implies it.

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