Query the vulnerability tracking board to retrieve CVEs ranked by severity, with optional filters for severity level or status. Use it to prioritize remediation efforts.
Queries the vulnerability tracking board and returns CVEs ranked by severity. Optionally filter by severity or status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | Filter by vulnerability status | |
| severity | No | Filter by minimum severity level |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load; it does disclose that results come back ranked by severity, which is genuine behavioral value. However, it omits default filtering behavior (are resolved/ignored CVEs included by default?), pagination/result limits, and permission requirements for a security-sensitive board.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, zero waste, front-loaded with the core action and return shape followed by the optional refinement. Nothing redundant.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read tool with two optional enum parameters and no output schema, the description covers what it does and what it returns. It would be stronger with default-filter behavior and result-set size expectations, but it is close to complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% and both parameters are enum-constrained, so the schema already documents them fully. The description adds no formatting or default-value detail beyond 'filter by severity or status' — the baseline 3 for schema-covered parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (Queries) and resource (vulnerability tracking board), and names the return payload (CVEs ranked by severity). No sibling tool overlaps this domain, so no differentiation burden is required.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description says the filters are optional, implying the tool is used for broad vulnerability triage, but it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of which sibling tools might be preferred for adjacent tasks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.