Get available fixes and patches for a given CVE ID. Provide the organisation UUID and CVE identifier to retrieve remediation options for that vulnerability.
List available fixes/patches for one CVE.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cveId | Yes | CVE identifier (e.g. CVE-2024-1234). | |
| organisationId | Yes | The RoboShadow organisation's UUID. Discover it with roboshadow_list_organisations. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List', which implies a read operation, but it does not state output characteristics, authentication needs, or any side effects. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the bare purpose.
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?
The description is a single sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately front-loaded and every word contributes to the core meaning.
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 two-parameter list tool, the description is minimally viable: it names the resource and the schema covers parameters. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it would benefit from clarifying what a 'fix/patch' entry looks like and when to call this over similar CVE-related tools.
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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description's phrase 'for one CVE' aligns with cveId but adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides.
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?
The description states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('available fixes/patches for one CVE'), making the tool's purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings like roboshadow_get_cve_vulnerabilities or roboshadow_get_remediation_report, so it only partially distinguishes itself.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and provides no prerequisites or exclusions. Siblings such as roboshadow_get_remediation_attempt_cves and roboshadow_get_cve_vulnerabilities overlap in domain, so the agent is left to guess which tool fits the task.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.