Skip to main content
Glama

exploit_lookup

Read-onlyIdempotent

Assess real-world exploitation risk by searching for public exploits and proof-of-concepts for a specific CVE across GitHub, Shodan, and ExploitDB.

Instructions

Search public exploits/PoC for a specific CVE across three sources: (1) GitHub Advisory Database (sources.github.advisories[]), (2) Shodan CVEDB references (sources.shodan_refs.results[] — packetstorm/seclists/vendor URLs cited by Shodan; results capped at SHODAN_REFS_LIMIT default 200, truncated=true when capped, count is the honest upstream total), (3) ExploitDB CSV mirror (exploits[] array, with edb_id + author + verified flag — these are the actual ExploitDB entries). Use to assess if a vulnerability has weaponized exploits in the wild; run after cve_lookup to evaluate real-world risk. When the CVE is also in CISA KEV (kev.in_kev=true on cve_lookup), pair with kev_detail for federal patch deadline; pair with cwe_lookup on cwe_id for the underlying weakness category and mitigations. Response carries next_calls — single cve_lookup pivot for full context (KEV status, CWE chain, CVSS, EPSS); cve_lookup's own next_calls then surface kev_detail and cwe_lookup automatically (this endpoint has no in_kev/cwe_id schema, so blind emission of those pivots is intentionally avoided). Free: 30/hr, Pro: 500/hr. Returns {cve_id, exploits_found, has_public_exploit, sources: {github, shodan_refs: {found, count, truncated, results}}, exploits: [{edb_id, cve_id, date_published, author, type, platform, url, verified, description}], summary, verdict, next_calls}.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cve_idYesCVE identifier in format CVE-YYYY-NNNNN (e.g. 'CVE-2024-3094', 'CVE-2023-44487')

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare it as a read-only, idempotent operation with no destructive behavior. The description adds key behavioral details like Shodan refs capping at 200, truncation flag, and honest count, exceeding annotation coverage.

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?

The description is detailed and well-structured, front-loading the core purpose and following with source specifics and usage guidance. A bit lengthy but earned.

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?

Covers all necessary aspects: sources, limitations, rate limits, return structure, and integration with other tools. Output schema exists, so return values are not required in description.

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?

The schema already has 100% description coverage for the single parameter (cve_id), so the description adds no new semantic value beyond stating it's a CVE identifier.

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 clearly states it searches for exploits/PoC for a specific CVE across three named sources, distinguishing it from sibling tools like cve_lookup by focusing on weaponized exploits in the wild.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: use after cve_lookup to assess real-world risk, pair with kev_detail and cwe_lookup for additional context, and avoid blind emission of pivots.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/UPinar/contrastapi'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server