Retrieve vulnerability details for a CVE ID, including severity, CVSS score, exploit availability, and exposed devices. Use to assess risk and prioritize remediation.
Get one vulnerability by CVE ID: severity, CVSS, exploit availability, exposed devices.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cve_id | Yes | The CVE ID, e.g. CVE-2024-1234. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by listing the returned attributes, but it does not disclose potential behaviors like not-found handling or response structure, which is a minor gap given no output schema.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, then compactly lists the expected output fields. No waste or redundancy is present.
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 one-parameter read-only lookup, the description is largely complete: it names the resource, identifier, and returned fields. It lacks explicit error/not-found behavior, but given the simplicity and rich annotations, it is adequate for safe 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?
The only parameter cve_id is fully described in the schema with an example format (CVE-2024-1234). The description merely repeats 'by CVE ID' without adding extra semantics, so it relies on the high schema coverage and gets the baseline score.
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 clearly states a specific action ('Get one vulnerability') and a specific resource identified by CVE ID. It also lists the key return fields (severity, CVSS, exploit availability, exposed devices), which distinguishes it from plural or machine-scoped sibling tools like defender_get_vulnerabilities or defender_get_machine_vulnerabilities.
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 phrase 'by CVE ID' gives clear context for when to use this tool: when the agent has a specific CVE identifier. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, such as pointing to defender_get_vulnerabilities for a list, so it falls short of full routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.