Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
vulnerability-exposure-mcp

vulnerability-exposure-mcp

by MRFrazer25
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

CVE keyword search

cve_search
Read-onlyIdempotent

Search NVD by real product or vendor name to find recent matching CVEs and identify known vulnerabilities when a specific software version is unknown.

Instructions

Keyword search of NVD returning the most recent matching CVEs (e.g. 'grafana' or 'log4j'). Not version-aware; prefer version_specific_vulnerability_check when a version is known. Search real product or vendor names, at most twice per product (product, then vendor), never fragments of a name.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "search_term": "<search_term>"
    },
    "name": "cve_search"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
search_termYesA real product or vendor name, e.g. 'grafana'.
investigation_idNoThe investigation_id from investigate_target. Pass it so the result counts toward that investigation's evidence, budget and key facts; without it the lookup runs on its own.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.0.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / investigation_id / description
      Added value: +"The investigation_id from investigate_target. Pass it so the result counts toward that investigation's evidence, budget and key facts; without it the lookup runs on its own."
    • addedInput schema / properties / search_term / description
      Added value: +"A real product or vendor name, e.g. 'grafana'."
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: results are recency-ordered ('most recent matching CVEs'), the tool is not version-aware, and calls are budget-limited per product. It stops short of stating result volume or truncation behavior, so not a 5.

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?

Three sentences, each doing distinct work: what it returns, which sibling to prefer, and how to phrase the query. Zero filler and the primary capability is front-loaded.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a two-parameter read-only search with full schema coverage and no output schema, the essentials are present: scope, ordering, version limitation, and the alternative tool. Minor residual gaps (typical result count, what happens on no matches) keep it just below full completeness.

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% – both search_term and investigation_id are fully documented in-schema. The description only adds the negative constraint 'never fragments of a name' on top of the schema's existing 'real product or vendor name' guidance, and says nothing about investigation_id since the schema already explains its effect.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Keyword search of NVD returning the most recent matching CVEs') with concrete examples ('grafana', 'log4j'), and separately names the sibling it should not be confused with (version_specific_vulnerability_check). An agent can select between them without opening either schema.

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?

Explicit routing rule: 'Not version-aware; prefer version_specific_vulnerability_check when a version is known.' Adds operational discipline ('at most twice per product (product, then vendor), never fragments of a name') that tells the agent both when to use it and how to sequence calls.

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