Skip to main content
Glama
WYRE-AI

RoboShadow MCP Server

by WYRE-AI
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

roboshadow_get_cve_vulnerabilities

List CVEs for an organization, including CVSS/EPSS scores, exploited-in-the-wild indicators, and counts of affected operating systems, applications, and devices.

Instructions

List CVEs affecting the organisation, each with CVSS/EPSS score, known-exploited-in-the-wild flag, and affected-OS/app/device counts.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
daysNoFilter results to the last N days.
pageNoPage number for pagination (1-indexed). Default 1.
itemsPerPageNoNumber of items per page (1-100). Default 10.
organisationIdYesThe RoboShadow organisation's UUID. Discover it with roboshadow_list_organisations.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It reveals useful output behavior and the organisation-level scope, and 'List' implies read-only, but it does not mention permissions, side effects, sorting, or limitations. Sufficient for a simple list operation but not richly transparent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single, front-loaded sentence states the main purpose first and packs all relevant output detail into one compact clause. There is no filler or repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the return shape and scope well. Combined with fully described parameters, the agent has enough to call it correctly, though explicit guidance on how it relates to the numerous sibling vulnerability tools would improve completeness.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented. The description does not need to repeat parameter details and adds value only by describing what the returned CVEs include, not by enhancing parameter semantics.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('List CVEs affecting the organisation') and enumerates meaningful returned attributes (CVSS/EPSS score, known-exploited flag, affected-OS/app/device counts). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_cve_fixes or get_vulnerabilities_summary.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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 instead of alternatives such as get_cve_fixes, get_vulnerable_devices, or get_cpe_vulnerabilities. It does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or typical scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools