Skip to main content
Glama

Exploit Lookup

exploit_lookup
Read-onlyIdempotent

Search public exploits and proof-of-concept code for a specific CVE across GitHub Advisory, Shodan references, and ExploitDB to assess real-world exploitation risk.

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?

Discloses response structure with field details, Shodan refs limit (default 200, truncated flag), and explains next_calls logic. No contradictory annotations; readOnlyHint=true aligns with the search nature.

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 dense with useful information but slightly verbose. It is well-structured, covering sources, usage, and returns, though a few sentences could be trimmed without loss.

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?

Given the rich annotations and output schema, the description fully covers the tool's behavior, integration points, and constraints. No missing information for an effective agent invocation.

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?

Only one parameter (cve_id) with full schema coverage (100%). The description reinforces the format and gives examples, but adds no substantial meaning beyond the schema.

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 public exploits/PoC for a specific CVE across three named sources. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like cve_lookup, kev_detail, and cwe_lookup by specifying its unique function.

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 guidance: 'Use to assess if a vulnerability has weaponized exploits in the wild; run after cve_lookup'. Provides context on when to pair with kev_detail and cwe_lookup, and mentions rate limits (30/hr free, 500/hr Pro).

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