Skip to main content
Glama

exploit_lookup

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search public exploits and PoCs for a given CVE across GitHub, Shodan, and ExploitDB to evaluate 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint. Description adds behavior beyond annotations: explains Shodan results capped at 200 with truncation flag, count is honest total, and response structure. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Description is detailed but every sentence adds value. Front-loaded with key purpose and sources. Could be slightly trimmed, but no redundant fluff. Well-structured for an AI agent reading.

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 tool complexity (multiple sources, capping, pivots, next_calls), description is very complete. Explains response fields, sources' behaviors, and integration with sibling tools. Output schema exists but description adds necessary context for correct usage.

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?

Only one parameter (cve_id) with 100% schema description coverage. Description adds value by reinforcing the CVE format and explaining its role in the lookup, but schema already documents it. Minor addition beyond baseline 3.

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?

Description clearly states it searches public exploits/PoC for a CVE across three specific sources. Name 'exploit_lookup' is straightforward. Distinguishes from sibling tools like cve_lookup and kev_detail by specifying its unique purpose and usage context.

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?

Explicitly advises to use after cve_lookup to assess real-world risk. Provides pairing guidance with kev_detail and cwe_lookup. Mentions next_calls and warns against blind emission of pivots this endpoint cannot support. Clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use.

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