Skip to main content
Glama
K4PXD

cve-mcp-server

by K4PXD
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Triage a CVE (prioritization verdict)

cve_triage
Read-onlyIdempotent

Fuse CVSS, EPSS, CISA KEV, and PoC signals into one priority verdict, telling you whether a CVE needs immediate action or can wait.

Instructions

Produce a single prioritization verdict for a CVE by fusing every exploitation signal: CVSS severity, EPSS 30-day exploitation probability, CISA KEV (confirmed in-the-wild use / ransomware), and public proof-of-concept availability.

Answers "should I drop everything for this, or can it wait?" — the judgment call an analyst otherwise makes by hand across four tools.

Priority levels: ACT NOW (KEV / score ≥85) > HIGH (≥70) > ELEVATED (≥50) > MODERATE (≥30) > LOW. KEV membership always pins to ACT NOW. Score (0-100): CVSS up to 50, EPSS up to 40, and exploit availability up to 15 (weaponized Metasploit exploit module 15 > other packaged tooling 12 > public PoC 10).

Args:

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

  • check_pocs (boolean): Include PoC availability (default: true; one extra lookup).

  • check_tooling (boolean): Include Metasploit/Nuclei tooling (default: true; one extra lookup).

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

Returns (json): { cve_id, priority, score, rationale[], signals{ cvssScore, cvssSeverity, epss, epssPercentile, kevListed, kevRansomware, kevDueDate, pocCount, msfModuleCount, nucleiTemplateCount, weaponized }, tooling{ metasploit, nuclei }, description }.

Examples:

  • "Should we patch CVE-2024-3400 this weekend?" -> cve_id="CVE-2024-3400".

  • "Triage this from the scan, skip the PoC check" -> check_pocs=false.

Errors:

  • "No NVD record found for " if the CVE is unknown/unpublished.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cve_idYesCVE identifier, e.g. 'CVE-2021-44228'.
check_pocsNoFactor public PoC availability into the verdict (one extra lookup).
check_toolingNoFactor packaged exploit tooling (Metasploit modules / Nuclei templates) into the verdict.
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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Despite already having readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, the description adds substantial behavioral detail: exact priority thresholds, the 50/40/15 scoring weights, KEV pinning behavior, conditional extra lookups, the structured return shape, and the expected error message. This gives an agent an unusually complete picture of runtime behavior.

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 long but every section earns its place: decision question, priority levels, scoring formula, arguments, return shape, examples, and errors. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and carefully structured with labels, making complex scoring logic easy for an agent to parse.

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?

Even though there is no output schema, the description explicitly enumerates the JSON return fields, signal sub-object, tooling sub-object, and error string. Given the tool's algorithmic complexity, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke it correctly without guessing.

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?

The input schema already covers all 4 parameters at 100%, so the schema carries the baseline burden. The description adds useful practical value beyond the schema, such as the 'one extra lookup' cost for check_pocs, the default behavior for check_tooling, and a concrete example of using check_pocs=false. That is enough to rise above baseline 3.

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 verb and resource: 'Produce a single prioritization verdict for a CVE' by fusing exploitation signals. It also differentiates itself from siblings by presenting the tool as the fused judgment call an analyst would otherwise make across four signals, which clearly separates it from cve_get_details, cve_get_epss, cve_get_kev, and similar getter tools.

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 explicitly frames when to use the tool: it answers 'should I drop everything for this, or can it wait?' and gives relatable examples with cve_id. It does not explicitly state exclusions or route the agent to cve_batch_triage for multi-CVE workflows, so it stops short of perfect guidance.

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