Look up a specific vulnerability or exploit by CVE, EDB, or GHSA ID on Vulners for threat intelligence.
Look up a specific vulnerability or exploit by ID on Vulners. Requires VULNERS_API_KEY. Supports CVE, EDB, GHSA IDs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Vulnerability ID (e.g. CVE-2024-1234, EDB-ID:12345) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing the VULNERS_API_KEY auth requirement, which an agent must satisfy before calling. It does not touch return format or rate limits, keeping it below a 5.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the prerequisites and supported formats. No filler and nothing an agent needs is buried.
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 single-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description covers purpose, auth, and valid ID formats. Nothing material is missing for correct invocation.
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?
With a single parameter at 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, but the description adds the accepted ID namespaces (CVE, EDB, GHSA), which goes beyond the schema example that only shows CVE and EDB-ID. The GHSA mention is genuinely new information.
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 (look up) and resource (a vulnerability or exploit by ID) plus the source (Vulners), and the 'by ID' framing implicitly separates it from the search-style siblings. It does not name vulners_search or vulners_exploit to make the boundary explicit, so it falls short of a 5.
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 'look up a specific ... by ID' phrasing implies the usage context, i.e. use it when you already have an identifier rather than a query. However, it never states when to prefer this over vulners_search or vulners_exploit, leaving the choice to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.