@attestd/mcp

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_cve_details

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve full details for a specific CVE, including CVSS, EPSS, KEV status, and affected products, to assess risk and make patch recommendations.

Instructions

Return full details for a single CVE id (CVSS, EPSS, KEV status, affected products). Use when you need context on a specific CVE before recommending a patch or explaining risk to a developer.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`cve_id`	Yes	CVE identifier, e.g. "CVE-2021-44228"

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`cveId`	No
`error`	No
`found`	No	False when the CVE id is not in Attestd's database.
`cvssScore`	No
`epssScore`	No
`cvssVector`	No
`description`	No
`lastCheckedAt`	No
`epssPercentile`	No
`affectedProducts`	No
`activelyExploited`	No
`remoteExploitable`	No
`sourcePublishedAt`	No
`authenticationRequired`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Jul 28, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by specifying the return details (CVSS, EPSS, KEV, affected products), providing extra context beyond the annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and usage guidance. No wasted words.

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?

With a single parameter, full schema coverage, an output schema present, and enough context in the description to explain what is returned, the description is complete for a simple lookup tool.

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?

The schema already fully describes the single parameter (cve_id) with 100% coverage and an example. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond restating 'single CVE id', so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool returns full details for a single CVE id, listing specific data fields (CVSS, EPSS, KEV status, affected products). It is distinct from sibling tools like check_package_vulnerability, which focus on packages or batches.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use when you need context on a specific CVE before recommending a patch or explaining risk.' It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the usage context is clear.

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

Deploy Server