Skip to main content
Glama
K4PXD

cve-mcp-server

by K4PXD
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Get exploit tooling (Metasploit + Nuclei)

cve_get_exploit_tooling
Read-onlyIdempotent

Find packaged Metasploit modules and Nuclei templates for any CVE ID, including severity ratings and run commands for quick exploitation and at-scale detection.

Instructions

Find packaged, ready-to-run exploit and scan tooling for a CVE: Metasploit Framework modules (Rapid7) and Nuclei templates (ProjectDiscovery).

This is distinct from cve_get_pocs (raw proof-of-concept repos). For an operator, packaged tooling is usually more actionable: a Metasploit exploit module is point-and-shoot (use <module>), and a Nuclei template gives repeatable, at-scale detection (nuclei -id <cve> -u <target>). Each module/template comes with its reliability/severity, disclosure date, msfconsole/nuclei run string, and GitHub source link.

Intended for authorized penetration testing, detection engineering, and vulnerability triage.

Args:

  • cve_id (string): CVE identifier, e.g. "CVE-2021-44228".

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

Returns (json): { cveId, metasploit: [ { fullname, name, type, rank, rankLabel, disclosureDate, hasCheck, sourceUrl } ], nuclei: [ { id, name, severity, cvssScore, filePath, sourceUrl } ] }.

Metasploit rank: 0 Manual, 100 Low, 200 Average, 300 Normal, 400 Good, 500 Great, 600 Excellent. Type "exploit" is weaponized; "auxiliary" is typically a scanner/check.

Examples:

  • "Is there a Metasploit module for Log4Shell?" -> cve_id="CVE-2021-44228".

  • "Can I scan for CVE-2024-3400 with Nuclei?" -> cve_id="CVE-2024-3400".

Notes:

  • Returns empty lists (not an error) when no packaged tooling references the CVE.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cve_idYesCVE identifier, e.g. 'CVE-2021-44228'.
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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns empty lists rather than errors when no tooling exists, explains the Metasploit rank scale, and distinguishes weaponized 'exploit' modules from 'auxiliary' scanner/check modules. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then organized into labeled sections: Args, Returns, rank explanation, Examples, and Notes. Every section contributes selection or invocation guidance, with no 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?

With no output schema present, the description fully compensates by defining the JSON return shape for metasploit and nuclei entries, explaining rank values and exploit type semantics, and noting empty-list behavior. The examples and intended-use note make the tool self-contained for an agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% for both parameters, so the baseline bar is lower; the description still adds useful examples mapping natural-language requests to cve_id and clarifies response_format values. It mostly repeats the schema, hence 4 rather than 5.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Find packaged, ready-to-run exploit and scan tooling for a CVE: Metasploit Framework modules ... and Nuclei templates.' It clearly separates itself from cve_get_pocs by stating it returns tooling rather than raw proof-of-concept repos, so an agent can select it with confidence.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly names the sibling alternative cve_get_pocs and draws the when-not boundary: 'This is distinct from cve_get_pocs (raw proof-of-concept repos).' It also states intended use cases ('authorized penetration testing, detection engineering, and vulnerability triage') and gives natural-language examples, leaving little ambiguity about when to invoke 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