vulnerability-exposure-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Newly exploited CVEs

newly_exploited

Read-onlyIdempotent

Find CVEs recently added to CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog by day range and product, with required actions, due dates, ransomware use, and EPSS scores.

Instructions

What got exploited recently? CVEs CISA added to its Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog in the last few days, newest first, with CISA's required action, the US federal due date, known ransomware use and EPSS. Give products to keep only those that name them (a product match is Related; confirm with am_i_affected). No key.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "newly_exploited"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`days`	No	How far back to look, in days (1 to 90). Default 7.
`products`	No	Optional. Product names to keep, e.g. ['nginx', 'FortiOS']. Leave out to list every new addition.
`investigation_id`	No	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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv1.2.0Nov 1, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / days / anyOf
```
Added value: +[
+  {
+    "type": "integer"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "string"
+  }
+]
```
- removedInput schema / properties / days / type
```
Removed value: -"integer"
```
Addedv1.1.0Oct 31, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations, the description discloses the returned fields (required action, due date, ransomware use, EPSS), the newest-first ordering, the absence of an API key requirement, and that product matches are only 'Related' rather than confirmed. That confidence caveat is exactly the kind of trait annotations can't express.

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?

Front-loaded with the question the tool answers, then the data it returns, then the filtering and confirmation guidance. Dense but every clause carries information; only "Give products to keep only those that name them" is slightly awkwardly phrased.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the result fields, and it covers auth, ordering, and the product-match confidence model. The only notable gap is not positioning the tool against its closest sibling, cisa_kev_check.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning for products: a match is a Related signal that should be verified with am_i_affected — semantics the schema doesn't convey. days is only loosely echoed ("last few days") and investigation_id is left entirely to the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The opening line plus the body state a specific resource and scope: CVEs CISA added to the KEV catalog in the last few days, newest first, with named fields. It is clear what the tool returns. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling cisa_kev_check, which an agent could easily confuse with this recency-focused variant.

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?

"Give products to keep only those that name them" tells the agent when to pass products versus leaving it out to list every new addition, and it routes the agent to am_i_affected for confirmation. What's missing is when to prefer this over cisa_kev_check or how it relates to investigate_target beyond the optional id.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.