Skip to main content
Glama
K4PXD

cve-mcp-server

by K4PXD
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

CISA KEV lookup / catalog

cve_get_kev
Read-onlyIdempotent

Check if a CVE is actively exploited and listed in CISA's KEV catalog, with remediation due dates and ransomware flags. Browse the latest catalog entries using vendor and ransomware filters.

Instructions

Query the CISA Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) catalog — the authoritative list of CVEs confirmed to be actively exploited in the wild.

Two modes:

  • Single lookup: pass cve_id to check whether a specific CVE is KEV-listed (with remediation due date and ransomware-use flag).

  • Catalog list: omit cve_id to browse the catalog, newest additions first, with optional vendor / ransomware filters.

Args:

  • cve_id (string, optional): Single-CVE lookup.

  • vendor (string, optional): Vendor/product substring filter (list mode).

  • ransomware_only (boolean, default false): Only known-ransomware entries (list mode).

  • limit (1-100, default 25), offset (default 0): Pagination (list mode).

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

Returns (single): a KEV entry object, or a "not listed" message. Returns (list, json): { catalogVersion, dateReleased, total, count, startIndex, entries[] }.

Examples:

  • "Is CVE-2024-3400 known-exploited?" -> cve_id="CVE-2024-3400".

  • "Recent ransomware-linked KEV entries" -> ransomware_only=true.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoResults per page when listing (1-100).
cve_idNoLook up a single CVE's KEV entry. Omit to list the catalog.
offsetNoPagination offset when listing.
vendorNoFilter the catalog by vendor or product substring.
ransomware_onlyNoList only entries with known ransomware-campaign use.
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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context: newest-first ordering, the 'not listed' message for single lookup, the exact JSON list structure, and the response_format switch. No contradictions.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well organized with a purpose statement first, then modes, args, returns, and examples. It is longer than minimal but every section serves a purpose for a 6-parameter tool with two modes. No fluff.

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?

Without an output schema, the description fully specifies return shapes for both single and list modes, including the JSON structure. Examples clarify exact invocations. An agent has all necessary information to call 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% and each parameter already has a clear description. The description re-lists all args and adds mode-scoping context (e.g., list mode for vendor and ransomware_only), but this is largely redundant with the schema. It meets the baseline without adding substantial new meaning.

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 exactly what the tool does: queries the CISA Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog, the authoritative list of actively exploited CVEs. It clearly describes two modes (single lookup vs catalog list), distinguishing this tool from siblings like cve_search and cve_get_details.

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?

Explicit guidance is given for mode selection: pass cve_id for single lookup, omit it to browse the catalog. Concrete examples map natural-language queries to parameter settings. It does not name sibling tools or state when not to use it, but the mode differentiation is clear.

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