Skip to main content
Glama
K4PXD

cve-mcp-server

by K4PXD
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Vendor/product CVE watchlist

cve_watchlist
Read-onlyIdempotent

Monitor a vendor or product for newly published CVEs and actively exploited vulnerabilities in one call, aggregating NVD and CISA KEV data to answer what's new and what's on fire.

Instructions

Monitor a vendor or product for new and known-exploited vulnerabilities in one call — a digest that fuses NVD recent-publications with the CISA KEV catalog.

Answers "what's new and what's on fire for right now?" without running cve_recent, cve_search, and cve_get_kev separately and cross-referencing by hand.

Args:

  • vendor (string): Vendor/product to watch, e.g. "fortinet", "apache struts". Matched against NVD descriptions and KEV vendor/product fields.

  • days (1-120, default 30): Look-back window for newly published CVEs.

  • severity ('LOW'|'MEDIUM'|'HIGH'|'CRITICAL'): Optional minimum severity for the recent list.

  • include_kev (boolean, default true): Also list this vendor's KEV entries (newest first; items added within the window are flagged 🆕).

  • limit (1-50, default 25): Max recently-published CVEs.

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

Returns (json): { vendor, window_days, since, recent: { total, count, results[] }, kev: { total, entries[] }, kev_in_window }. Each recent result carries a kev_listed flag.

Examples:

  • "What's new for Fortinet this month, and what's actively exploited?" -> vendor="fortinet".

  • "Critical Ivanti CVEs in the last two weeks" -> vendor="ivanti", days=14, severity="CRITICAL".

Errors:

  • "NVD rejected the request (400)" if filters are invalid.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
daysNoLook-back window in days for newly published CVEs (1-120; NVD caps ranges at 120).
limitNoMax recently-published CVEs to return (1-50).
vendorYesVendor or product to watch, e.g. 'fortinet', 'apache struts', 'cisco ios'. Matched against NVD descriptions and the CISA KEV vendor/product fields.
severityNoOnly include recently-published CVEs at/above this CVSS v3 severity.
include_kevNoAlso surface this vendor's CISA KEV (actively-exploited) entries, newest first.
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 declare the operation is read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description goes further by explaining the fusion behavior, the matching mechanism against NVD descriptions and KEV fields, the return JSON structure, the 🆕 flag semantics for in-window KEV entries, and the NVD 400 error case. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond 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 well-structured with clear sections: a one-sentence purpose, an alternatives note, Args, Returns, Examples, and Errors. Every section contributes to correct invocation, and the key differentiator is front-loaded. It is detailed without being bloated.

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?

For a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the return structure, parameter semantics, error behavior, and usage examples. It also states the NVD 120-day cap and the default values. Nothing essential for selecting or invoking the tool is missing.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds value by clarifying that severity is a minimum threshold, showing realistic examples tied to parameter values, and noting that KEV entries added within the window are flagged. This goes slightly beyond a bare schema repeat.

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: 'Monitor a vendor or product for new and known-exploited vulnerabilities in one call — a digest that fuses NVD recent-publications with the CISA KEV catalog.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming cve_recent, cve_search, and cve_get_kev as the alternatives it replaces.

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 states when to use this tool: to answer 'what's new and what's on fire for <vendor> right now?' and to avoid running cve_recent, cve_search, and cve_get_kev separately. It also provides concrete examples ('Critical Ivanti CVEs in the last two weeks' maps to vendor='ivanti', days=14, severity='CRITICAL'), giving the agent clear decision 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