cve-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.2.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct data source or specific operation (e.g., cve_enrich vs. nvd_get, cve_compare vs. cve_prioritize). Descriptions clearly differentiate purposes, even for similar-looking tools.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools follow a consistent 'source_action' pattern with underscores (e.g., nvd_get, epss_score). Minor deviations like 'cve_by_product' and 'cve_to_attack' break the pattern but are still readable.
Tool Count4/5
41 tools is high but justified by the breadth of data sources (NVD, EPSS, KEV, etc.) and operations (get, search, compare, prioritize). Slightly over the typical sweet spot but still well-scoped.
Completeness5/5
Covers nearly every aspect of CVE handling: retrieval from multiple sources, enrichment, comparison, prioritization, reporting, exploit checks, CWE mapping, and trending. No obvious gaps for a vulnerability intelligence server.
Average 3.7/5 across 41 of 41 tools scored. Lowest: 2.9/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 5 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on July 6, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions full-text search across many sources but does not disclose rate limits, authentication requirements, error behavior, or result format. For a search tool, more behavioral context is needed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two front-loaded sentences. The first sentence gives the overall purpose, and the second lists searchable content. No redundancy, but it could be slightly more structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides basic context (search scope, types). However, it lacks details about pagination, result structure, or how to effectively use the type and limit parameters, leaving some gaps for an agent to infer.
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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context about source breadth (200+ sources) and types of results (exploits, advisories, etc.), which partially supplements the parameter descriptions. However, it adds no new parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it is a full-text vulnerability search across 200+ sources, covering exploits, advisories, patches, and reports. While it distinguishes from many sibling tools by emphasizing broad coverage, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar tools like 'exploit_search'.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'exploit_search' or CVE-specific tools. The description implies general usage but lacks context-specific recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not state that the tool is read-only, safe, or idempotent, nor does it mention rate limits, pagination, or error handling. For a query tool, such disclosure is important.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. Concise with no extraneous information, though a slightly more structured format could improve scannability.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With three required parameters fully described in the schema and no output schema, the description is adequate for a simple query tool. However, it lacks information on return format, error cases, and safety, which is needed given no annotations.
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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds that ecosystems are broadly supported but does not enhance understanding beyond the schema. Baseline 3 due to full schema coverage.
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 verb 'Query', the resource 'Google OSV', and the scope 'known vulnerabilities affecting a specific package version'. It also mentions supported ecosystems, distinguishing it from sibling tools like osv_batch and osv_get.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like osv_batch (batch query) or osv_get (single vulnerability by ID). The description only states ecosystem support, not usage context or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication, rate limits, output format, or error handling, which are needed given no annotation support.
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?
Extremely concise at two sentences, no fluff, and front-loaded with the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With a single parameter and no output schema, the description omits important details like return values, pagination, or limitations, leaving the agent underinformed.
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 coverage is 100% with a clear description and example. The description adds ecosystem support context but does not significantly enhance meaning beyond the schema.
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 verb 'Search', the resource 'vulnerabilities by Package URL', and specifies the scope 'via VulnCheck' and supported ecosystems. It differentiates from sibling tools like vulncheck_cpe by the parameter type.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or prerequisites. It only states ecosystem support but lacks when-not-to-use information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. It only states the purpose and usefulness, with no disclosure of side effects, permissions, rate limits, or output format. For a search tool, basic read-only behavior can be inferred but is not explicitly stated.
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 short, front-loaded sentences with no redundant information. Every word serves a purpose. Highly efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter search tool without an output schema, the description covers the main purpose and use case. However, it does not describe the return format (e.g., list of CVE IDs or details), which would be helpful for an agent. It is minimally adequate but not fully complete.
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 coverage is 100% with a clear description and example for the single parameter 'cpe'. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. According to guidelines, baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high, so this score is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the verb 'Search' and resource 'vulnerabilities by CPE string', and specifies the context 'via VulnCheck'. Does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like cpe_search or cpe_match, but the unique combination of CPE and VulnCheck implies a distinct focus.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implied usage is clear ('finding all CVEs affecting a specific software version'), but there is no guidance on when not to use this tool or explicit alternatives among the many sibling tools. No prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions that the tool 'shows exactly which product versions are affected, including version ranges', it does not disclose key behavioral traits such as data source behavior, response format, limitations, error handling, or whether it might return partial results. The description is too vague to fully prepare an agent for invocation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded: the first sentence immediately states the tool's purpose. Every word contributes to understanding. It could potentially be slightly more concise by combining sentences, but overall it is efficient and to the point.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity (2 required params, no output schema), the description provides a basic idea of what the tool returns ('product versions, including version ranges'). However, it lacks details about pagination (limit parameter behavior), error handling for invalid CVE IDs, and the exact structure of the output. It is minimally adequate but not fully complete.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with both parameters (cveId, limit) adequately described in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the description does not degrade but also does not enhance parameter understanding.
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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource as 'CPE match criteria for a specific CVE from NVD'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like cpe_search (which is for general CPE search) and cve_by_product (which lists CVEs by product) by focusing on a single CVE and showing affected product versions with ranges.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is used when you have a specific CVE and want to know which product versions are affected. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like cve_enrich or nvd_get, nor does it provide any exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear but lacks explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention that this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, or any prerequisites. It only describes the return data, leaving safety profile undocumented.
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 concise sentences front-load the purpose and list key return fields without fluff. Every sentence adds value.
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 simple single-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete. However, it omits behavioral context (e.g., that it's idempotent) and does not explain pagination or error cases, which are minor gaps.
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 coverage is 100% with a clear parameter description. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond confirming the tool works for any CWE ID, which is already implied. 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?
Description clearly states verb 'Get' and resource 'full CWE details', listing specific fields returned. It distinguishes from sibling tools like cwe_lookup (which likely returns less detail) by emphasizing completeness.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs siblings such as cwe_lookup, cwe_hierarchy, or cwe_top25. The description only mentions it works for 'any of the 1000+ CWEs' but does not specify conditions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as data recency, rate limits, error handling for invalid years, or whether the result is cached. This leaves gaps for the AI agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences that efficiently convey the core function and the optional year parameter. No wasted words, but could be slightly more structured with bullet points for clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema, the description does not explain the return format (e.g., list of CWE IDs, descriptions, scores). For a simple tool this may be acceptable, but it could be more comprehensive to aid the agent.
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 covers the one parameter (year) with 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds that it shows rankings by frequency and severity, which provides slight extra context beyond the schema's year description.
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 specifies the tool retrieves the MITRE CWE Top 25 for a given year, with a focus on ranking vulnerability classes by frequency and severity. It distinguishes from sibling tools like cwe_get or cwe_lookup, which provide individual CWE details or hierarchical relationships.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by saying 'for a given year' and provides default year guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide conditions where it should not be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It fails to specify the return value format (e.g., boolean or module details), side effects, or any rate limits. The tool is a read operation but lacks clarity on output.
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 concise sentences with no extraneous information. Every word serves a purpose: verb, resource, and contextual recommendation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., a boolean, module name, or details), leaving the agent uncertain about how to interpret the result. This is a significant gap given the lack of output schema.
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 coverage is 100% and the parameter description is adequate. The tool description ('Check if a Metasploit exploit module exists for a CVE') adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema's 'CVE ID' description. 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?
Description clearly states the tool checks for Metasploit exploit module existence for a given CVE, and adds interpretive value by noting weaponization and patching priority. Distinguishes from sibling tools like exploit_search by focusing specifically on Metasploit modules.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description implies usage for determining patching priority but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like exploit_search or nuclei_check. No when-not or exclusion criteria are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, but it omits details like default ordering, pagination, data freshness, and interaction with parameters such as minScore.
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, no redundancy, efficient communication of the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a simple tool, but lacks description of output format and behavioral details, which would improve completeness given no output schema.
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 coverage is 100%, so the description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the parameter descriptions; baseline score applies.
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 retrieves top CVEs ranked by EPSS exploitation probability, differentiating it from sibling tools like epss_score which likely targets specific CVEs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit usage guidelines or alternatives mentioned; the context of sibling tools implies its use for an overview, but lacks clear direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It describes a read-only search operation, which is correct, but does not disclose response format, pagination, or any potential limitations. The description is adequate for a simple search but lacks depth.
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?
The description achieves maximum conciseness with two sentences. The first sentence contains the main action and resource, and the second adds context. No extraneous words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description could be more complete by mentioning what is returned (e.g., CVE IDs, due dates). However, it is functional and provides enough context for an agent to understand the tool's purpose.
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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the parameter concepts (vendor, product, keyword) without adding extra context, examples, or constraints beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the action ('Search'), the resource ('CISA KEV catalog'), and the purpose ('Find known exploited vulnerabilities for specific technologies'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like kev_check or kev_recent, which prevents a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for searching by vendor, product, or keyword, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., kev_recent for recent entries). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the return format (CVSS scores, descriptions, affected products) but omits key behavioral traits like pagination, ordering, rate limits, or whether searches are exact or fuzzy. The description is adequate but not comprehensive.
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?
The description is two sentences: the first explains what the tool does, the second what it returns. No redundant information, and the purpose is front-loaded. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 6 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the search capabilities and output fields. However, it misses details like default limit, maximum results, date format requirements, and error conditions. Sibling tool count is high but not addressed. It is adequate but not thorough.
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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description summarizes filter types (keyword, severity, CWE ID, date range) but adds no new semantic meaning or usage details beyond what the schema provides. 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's purpose: search CVEs by keyword, severity, CWE ID, or date range. It specifies what is returned (CVSS scores, descriptions, affected products), making the function unambiguous and distinguishing it from more specialized sibling tools.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this search tool versus the many sibling tools (e.g., cve_by_product, cve_trending). The description does not specify prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative scenarios, leaving the agent without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves data and specifies the nature of the output (ratings, analysis), which implies a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose potential limitations like API key requirements, rate limits, or data freshness, leaving some behavioral traits unclear.
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?
The description is two sentences long, immediately stating the tool's purpose and the specific type of data it returns. Every word is informative with no redundancy or fluff. The structure is front-loaded with the verb 'Get' and a clear resource.
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 simple tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool does and the kind of information it provides. It could hint at how the ratings are represented or any constraints, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to understand its capability.
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 input schema has 100% coverage with a single parameter cveId described as 'CVE ID (e.g., 'CVE-2024-3400')'. The tool description reiterates that the tool works for CVEs but adds no semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema already provides adequate description.
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 identifies the tool as retrieving community assessments for a CVE from AttackerKB, specifying the data includes attacker value, exploitability ratings, and Rapid7 analysis. This distinctively sets it apart from sibling tools that query other CVE databases or provide different types of CVE data.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like nvd_get or circl_cve. It does not mention contexts or prerequisites for using AttackerKB assessments, nor does it warn against misuse. Users must infer usage from the description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states a search operation with no mention of side effects, rate limits, authentication, or return format. Minimal behavioral insight beyond the obvious read operation.
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?
The description is two sentences long, directly front-loaded with the purpose, and contains no extraneous information. Every word earns its place.
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?
The description covers the basic purpose and parameter usage for a simple search tool. It could mention default limit and pagination, but given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, it is reasonably complete.
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 both parameters (keyword and limit) are already well-described in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides.
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 verb 'Search', the resource 'NVD CPE dictionary', and the purpose 'Find standardized product identifiers for use in vulnerability queries'. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like cpe_match and cve_by_product.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for finding product identifiers but does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternative tools like cpe_match or cve_by_product. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions return data but fails to disclose whether the operation is read-only, idempotent, or has rate limits. This leaves agents uncertain about side effects.
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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and provides essential details without redundancy. Every word contributes value.
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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main inputs and outputs. Minor omissions like maximum CVE count or error handling are acceptable given tool simplicity.
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 sole parameter 'cve' is fully described in the schema (100% coverage), including format and example. The description adds no new info beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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's function: retrieving EPSS scores for one or more CVEs, specifying the return includes probability and percentile. It distinguishes itself from siblings like epss_top by focusing on individual CVEs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use when EPSS scores are needed but lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like epss_top or exploit_search. No contrast with siblings is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it searches GitHub and returns sorted repos, but does not disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, scope (all of GitHub or curated), or error handling. The description is adequate but lacks depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is brief (two sentences, 22 words) and front-loaded with the action and resource. It wastes no words but could be slightly more structured by separating purpose and result. Still, it is efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema exists, so the description must explain return values. It states 'returns repositories with proof-of-concept code, sorted by stars', which is the core information but lacks details like fields returned or pagination. Given the tool's simplicity, this is adequate but not thorough.
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 single parameter 'cve' is fully described in the schema with an example. The description adds context by explaining the parameter is used to search for exploits on GitHub, but does not add new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.
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 verb 'search', the resource 'public PoC exploits and exploit code for a CVE on GitHub', and the result 'returns repositories with proof-of-concept code, sorted by stars'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools which focus on CVE enrichment, analysis, or listing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for finding exploit code for a specific CVE, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like cve_enrich or cve_report. No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions 'get' and 'recently published or modified' but does not specify read-only nature, data freshness, API limits, or pagination behavior.
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 efficient sentences, front-loaded with core purpose. No wasted words.
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?
Given simple optional parameters and no output schema, description is nearly complete. Lacks mention of return format but sufficient for a monitoring 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are already documented. Description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema definitions.
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?
Clearly states 'Get recently published or modified CVEs from NVD' with a specific verb and resource. Differentiates from sibling tools like nvd_search by emphasizing recency and monitoring.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
States 'Useful for monitoring new vulnerabilities' which implies usage context but provides no exclusions or alternatives. Does not compare with similar sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns detailed vulnerability information, which is helpful, but lacks explicit read-only traits, rate limits, or authentication needs. Acceptable but not thorough.
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 concise, front-loaded sentences. No wasted words, immediately states action and result.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one param, no output schema), the description adequately explains purpose and return content. Could hint at response format, but overall sufficient.
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 coverage is 100% with a single parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's own description of the CVE ID. Baseline score applied.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it looks up a CVE in the Vulners database and lists return details (exploit references, CVSS scores, etc.). It distinguishes from other lookup tools by specifying the Vulners source, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from vulners_search or other Vulners tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use when Vulners-specific detail is needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like nvd_get or circl_cve. No mention of prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 mentions parallel queries and the type of data returned, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, side effects, rate limits, or idempotency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single dense sentence that front-loads the purpose. While it packs a lot of information, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., splitting sources and outputs). Overall, it efficiently conveys the functionality.
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?
Given the single parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main sources and return elements. It is missing details on score computation, but still provides a good overview of what the tool does.
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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'cveId', which already has a clear description. The tool description adds context about enrichment but does not enhance parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides.
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 performs 'Full CVE enrichment' by querying multiple sources in parallel, and the list of sources and outputs distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools that focus on individual sources (e.g., nvd_get, epss_score).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for comprehensive vulnerability intelligence, but does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives or when not to use it. Context from sibling names suggests it aggregates, but no direct guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the input (list of CVEs) and the components of the risk score, but does not specify output format, how the score is computed, or whether the tool has side effects. It is reasonable but incomplete.
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?
The description is concise, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and mechanism without unnecessary verbiage. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the absence of output schema and annotations, the description should provide more detail on the return value (e.g., format of the ranked list) to be fully complete. It does specify that 'Higher score = patch first', which gives a hint, but lacks details on how the list is returned.
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 input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'cves', and the description adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema already provides (list of CVE IDs). Baseline score of 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's purpose: ranking CVEs by exploitation risk, and lists the specific signals combined (CVSS, EPSS, KEV, weaponization). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on individual signals (e.g., epss_score, kev_check).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for prioritization ('Rank a list... patch first') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like epss_score or exploit_search for individual CVEs. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only states the basic mapping function. It does not disclose behavioral traits like data freshness, error handling, output format, or performance characteristics, leaving significant gaps.
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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and contains no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate for a simple mapping tool but lacks details about return values, error handling, or limitations.
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% (parameter cweIds has description and example). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 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 verb 'Map' and the resource 'CWE weakness IDs to MITRE ATT&CK techniques', distinguishing it from siblings that deal with CVEs, CVSS, or CWE lookups.
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 mentions it is 'useful for threat modeling and detection engineering', providing clear context for when to use, but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'search', implying a read operation, but does not mention rate limits, authentication, pagination, or result format. The description is minimal and lacks transparency about side effects or constraints.
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?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and quickly mentions available filters. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the main functionality but lacks details on return format, pagination, or default behavior. With no output schema and no annotation support, more context would be beneficial for a search tool. However, it is minimally adequate for a simple search.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already has 100% description coverage for all four parameters. The description adds value by clarifying that 'keyword' accepts GHSA or CVE IDs, and provides examples for the ecosystem enum (e.g., npm, pip, maven). This extra context helps the agent understand parameter usage beyond the schema.
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 verb 'search' and the resource 'GitHub Advisory Database'. It specifies that it can filter by ecosystem, severity, or ID, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like ghsa_get that retrieves a single advisory by ID.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions. However, it implies its use for broad searches with filters, while siblings like ghsa_get are for specific ID lookups. No direct guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions no API key required, which is helpful, but omits rate limits, data freshness, or response size. For a simple read-only tool, this is adequate but not thorough.
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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and contains no wasted words. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
Given the single required parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers essential context: data returned and authentication requirement. It lacks details on response format or pagination, but for a simple lookup tool, it is sufficiently complete.
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?
Parameter coverage is 100% via schema, and the description adds an example format ('CVE-2024-3400'). This provides minimal added value beyond the schema, warranting the baseline score of 3.
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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'CVE details from CIRCL'. It lists specific data returned (CAPEC attack patterns, vulnerable products, access/impact vectors), which distinguishes it from siblings like nvd_get or osv_get that provide different details.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when you need CIRCL-specific CVE details and notes 'No API key required.' However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like cve_enrich or nvd_get, nor does it provide when-not-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It lists the output fields (CVSS, EPSS, KEV, etc.) but does not disclose behavioral traits like whether it fetches live data, any prerequisites (both CVEs must exist), or error handling. The description is adequate but lacks depth in behavioral transparency.
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?
The description is concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the action ('Compare two CVEs') and then enumerate the output elements. No redundant or unnecessary information. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
With no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns (CVSS, EPSS, KEV, affected products, risk scores, comparison summary). However, it could be more complete by mentioning prerequisites (e.g., both CVEs must exist) or error handling. Still, it provides sufficient context for a comparison tool among many siblings.
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 input schema already provides clear descriptions for both parameters ('First CVE ID' and 'Second CVE ID') with 100% coverage. The tool description does not add further parameter-specific meaning beyond repeating the purpose. Baseline of 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's purpose: 'Compare two CVEs side by side.' It lists specific elements shown (CVSS, EPSS, KEV status, affected products, risk scores) and mentions a comparison summary. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on single CVEs or lists.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when you need to compare two CVEs, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives. For example, it does not mention that for a single CVE, one should use enrichment tools like cve_enrich. The usage context is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It describes the parsing and calculation behavior adequately but does not disclose error handling (e.g., invalid vectors), authentication needs, or side effects. Since it's a parse tool, read-only nature is assumed but not stated.
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?
Three sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence states the main purpose, followed by specific outputs and version support. Every sentence adds value.
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 simple one-parameter parser, the description covers the core functionality well. However, it omits the output format (e.g., JSON structure), which would help the agent understand how to use the result. No output schema is provided, so description could compensate.
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 single parameter 'vector' is fully described in the schema (100% coverage) with an example. The description adds context about what the tool does with the vector but does not add new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides.
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 verb 'Parse', the resource 'CVSS v3.x or v4.0 vector string', and the outcomes: 'human-readable breakdown', 'calculates the base score', and 'plain-English summary'. It is distinct from sibling tools which focus on CVE, CPE, and vulnerability data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for interpreting CVSS vectors but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., for looking up CVSS in other tools). No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context from sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions it returns results for 'top 40+ most common CWEs' but does not disclose what happens for unrecognized IDs, keyword matches with no results, or any other limitations. The phrase 'top 40+' is vague and may mislead users into thinking all CWEs are covered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that covers the essential elements: action, resource, parameters, and output. It is concise without being overly terse, though it could be slightly more organized with separate sentences for each mode.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description explains the output (name, description, category) and covers the two main use cases. However, it lacks details about error handling (missing ID, no results), pagination, or whether results are limited to only the top 40+ CWEs. Given the low complexity of the tool, this is adequate but not complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds valuable context beyond schema: it specifies the format for the 'id' parameter ('CWE-79' or '79') and the purpose of 'query' (search keyword). This helps users correctly populate parameters.
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 action ('Look up'), the resource ('CWE'), and the two modes of operation (by ID or by keyword). It distinguishes from siblings by being the only CWE-specific tool among many CVE-related ones.
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 explains when to use each parameter ('by ID' or 'by keyword'), implying the two use cases. It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or provide alternatives, but for a simple lookup this is adequate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the extended coverage and included data types (exploit maturity, ransomware) but omits behavioral details such as error handling, rate limits, or authentication requirements. The information provided is helpful but incomplete for a fully transparent description.
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?
The description is extremely concise—two sentences with no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to the purpose and key differentiators.
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 simple lookup tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality and data enhancements. However, the absence of an output schema means it could be improved by describing the return format or fields more explicitly.
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 sole parameter 'cve' has 100% schema description coverage with a clear example. The tool description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 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 checks VulnCheck's extended KEV catalog for a given CVE, highlighting its differentiation from CISA KEV with 80% more entries and additional data (exploit maturity, ransomware association). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like kev_check.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for comprehensive KEV lookups but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like kev_check or kev_search. No when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It discloses the data sources (EPSS, NVD, KEV) but omits behavioral details like rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens when no trending CVEs are found. Adequate but not thorough.
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?
The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the verb 'Get', and contains no superfluous information. Every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema exists, so the description should clarify return values. It states the combined sources but does not detail output format, ordering, or pagination. Adequate for a simple tool but leaves gaps.
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 coverage is 100% with both parameters (limit, minEpss) described in the schema. The description adds no further semantic detail beyond the schema, so baseline score of 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 gets trending/hot CVEs with highest exploitation probability, specifying the resource (trending CVEs) and verb (Get). It distinguishes from siblings like nvd_recent, epss_top, and kev_recent by highlighting the combination of EPSS, NVD, and KEV sources.
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 provides clear context that the tool is for trending CVEs with combined data, implicitly distinguishing it from single-source siblings. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions included information (affected packages, CVSS, patch) but does not disclose rate limits, authentication needs, or any side effects. For a read operation, it is adequate but not rich.
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?
One sentence front-loads the purpose, then lists included details. No wasted words; every sentence earns its place.
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?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers what it does, what inputs it accepts, and what outputs it returns. Nothing missing given the complexity.
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 coverage is 100% with a single parameter described. The description repeats the ID types (GHSA or CVE) already in the schema, adding no new meaning beyond what is structured.
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 'Get full details of a GitHub security advisory' with specific ID types (GHSA or CVE). It distinguishes from siblings like ghsa_search (search) and nvd_get (NVD data).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use when you have a specific ID and need full details, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like ghsa_search or osv_get, nor when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool returns 'template URL, severity, and tags', which is helpful. However, it does not specify what happens if no template exists (e.g., null or empty result) or any authentication requirements, but for a simple check tool this is acceptable.
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 concise sentences. The first states the core purpose, the second provides background and return summary. 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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description fully covers what the tool does and what it returns. No missing critical information for an agent to decide to invoke it.
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 coverage is 100% with the parameter already well-described ('CVE ID (e.g., 'CVE-2024-3400')'). The description adds context about Nuclei and return fields but does not enhance parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema.
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 verb 'check if exists' is precise and the resource 'Nuclei detection template' is specific. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools that check other vulnerability databases (e.g., kev_check, msf_check).
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention exclusions or comparisons to siblings like kev_check or cve_enrich, leaving the agent without decision-making context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'full vulnerability details' without specifying what that includes, and lacks information on authentication, rate limits, or potential errors. This leaves significant gaps for an agent.
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, no redundant information. The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, making it efficient for an agent to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description should clarify return structure. 'Full vulnerability details' is vague. The tool is simple, but missing error handling info and a more precise output definition reduces completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema covers the single parameter 'id' with a basic description. The tool's description adds value by listing the accepted ID formats (e.g., 'GHSA-jfh8-c2jp-5v3q'), enhancing parameter understanding beyond the schema.
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 retrieves full vulnerability details from OSV by ID, listing specific ID formats (OSV, GHSA, CVE, ecosystem-specific). This sets it apart from sibling tools like osv_batch (batch) and osv_query (search).
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 specifies the accepted ID formats, indicating when to use the tool (when you have a specific vulnerability ID). It implicitly distinguishes from batch and query tools but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide direct alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It reveals the data source (NVD) and search method (exact match). However, it does not disclose rate limits, authentication needs, or behavior when no results are found. The safety profile (read-only) is implied but not explicit.
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?
The description is two short sentences with a clear example, front-loading the core action and search method. Every word is necessary, and there is no verbose or redundant information.
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 simple search tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what, how, and examples. It could mention the typical return format (list of CVEs with metadata) but is largely complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema covers 100% of parameters, but the description adds context: 'exact match' clarifies the search mode and examples illustrate usage. This adds value beyond the schema's descriptions without redundancy.
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 verb (Search), resource (CVEs), and method (by vendor or product name, NVD keyword exact match). Examples ('Apache Log4j', 'Microsoft Exchange') solidify understanding. No sibling tool duplicates this exact purpose, so it is well-distinguished.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for finding vulnerabilities by product/vendor but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like cve_compare, cve_enrich, or cve_trending. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully discloses the output format (markdown) and data sources (NVD, EPSS, KEV, remediation priority). It does not mention idempotency or side effects, but the report generation nature implies a read-like operation.
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?
The description is a single sentence that is informative and front-loaded. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or irrelevant detail.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no nested objects, no output schema), the description adequately covers its purpose and content. However, it lacks details like optionality of title, output format specifics, or limitations, preventing a perfect score.
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 the parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no extra semantic detail beyond restating the schema descriptions, so baseline score of 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 generates a markdown vulnerability report for a list of CVEs, specifying included details (NVD, EPSS, KEV, remediation priority). This verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like cve_enrich or cve_prioritize.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when a user has a list of CVEs and wants a report, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., cve_compare, cve_enrich). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It accurately describes the operation as read-only (hierarchy retrieval), but fails to disclose any other behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, or if the output is a list or tree.
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, concise and front-loaded with the key action and resource. Every word adds value; no fluff.
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 simple tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose and parameter. However, it does not hint at the output format (e.g., list vs tree), which would be helpful for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with one parameter described. The description adds meaning by explaining the hierarchy concept (parent/child, general/specific), which goes beyond the schema's simple type and example.
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?
Clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('CWE parent/child hierarchy'), including the distinction between parents and children, which differentiates it from sibling tools like cwe_get or cwe_lookup.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implies usage with a given CWE ID, but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives such as cwe_lookup or cwe_top25, nor provides any when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It does not disclose rate limits, authentication needs, or edge cases like invalid days/limit values.
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, no wasted words. Highly concise and efficient.
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?
No output schema, but the tool is simple and schema covers inputs well. Description could mention return format (list of entries) but is adequate for agent invocation.
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% with both parameters described in detail. The description adds no extra meaning beyond defaults (30 days, 20 results).
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?
Description uses specific verb 'Get' and resource 'recently added entries to CISA KEV catalog', clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like kev_search (search) and kev_check (check specific CVE).
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?
Stated purpose 'Monitor for newly confirmed actively-exploited vulnerabilities' implies when to use, but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tool comparisons.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description clearly discloses the output content (CVSS, severity, etc.), implying a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, nor does it mention potential rate limits or authentication needs. The transparency is good but could be more thorough.
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?
The description is a single sentence that is concise, front-loaded with the purpose, and contains no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the tool's function.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential purpose and output. Minor gaps include lack of error handling or response format details, but it is largely complete for a straightforward retrieval 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter (cveId) with an example. The description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 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's purpose: 'Get full details for a specific CVE from NVD' and lists the specific details returned (CVSS, severity, CWE, affected products, references, status). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like nvd_search (searching) and cve_by_product (by product).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for fetching a single CVE by ID but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance. The context of sibling tools makes the differentiation obvious, but explicit guidelines are missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature ('query for vulnerabilities') but omits details on batch size limits, response format, or authentication needs. The transparency is adequate but not comprehensive.
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, zero wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded and efficient.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It could mention potential batch size constraints, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's role.
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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single parameter (queries) and its fields. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, earning the baseline score.
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 performs batch queries for vulnerabilities across multiple packages, distinguishing it from sibling tools like osv_query or osv_get which handle single packages. The phrase 'Efficient for scanning a dependency list' reinforces the batch purpose.
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 implies usage for scanning a dependency list, which suggests multiple packages. However, it does not explicitly contrast with single-query tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses authentication requirements ('zero-auth') and what data is returned, but does not detail error handling or rate limits; adequate for a lookup tool without 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 returns, no unnecessary words.
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?
Specifies return fields (CVSS, EPSS, KEV, CPEs, references) and positions as comprehensive, but omits error behavior or handling of missing CVEs; sufficient 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?
Schema coverage is 100% with a clear description; the description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, meeting baseline.
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?
Clearly states 'Look up a CVE via Shodan CVEDB', specifying verb, resource, and distinguishing source from siblings.
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?
Indicates zero-auth and no API key, implying easy access; lists returned data, suggesting scenario of comprehensive lookup, but lacks explicit alternatives or when-not.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the returned data (ports, hostnames, CPEs, CVE IDs, tags) and notes that no API key is required, which is a key behavioral trait. It does not mention side effects, rate limits, or data freshness, but the tool is read-only and low-risk.
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 with zero waste. The purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds unique value (returns, no API key). Highly efficient.
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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what returns and that no authentication is needed. It could mention data source limitations or response format, but it is largely complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.
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% (the 'ip' parameter has a clear example). The description adds no further meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema provides. 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's purpose: to get known vulnerabilities for an IP address via Shodan InternetDB. It specifies the action (Get), resource (vulnerabilities for an IP), and data source, distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on CVE IDs or product lookups.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when one needs vulnerabilities for an IP, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it compare to siblings like shodan_cve or shodan_product. The lack of exclusions or alternatives leaves the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Being a simple lookup without side effects, the description adequately conveys the tool's read-only behavior. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden; it is sufficient for this simple operation.
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-load the purpose and add relevant context about urgency. Every word serves a purpose; no fluff. Ideal conciseness for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers the tool's input and purpose but does not specify the output format or error handling. Since there is no output schema, the agent might benefit from knowing whether it returns a boolean, list, or other structure. Adequate but incomplete.
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 the baseline is 3. The description adds context about the KEV catalog but does not add meaning beyond the schema for the parameter. It confirms the purpose but doesn't enhance parameter understanding.
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 checks if CVEs are in CISA's KEV catalog, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like kev_search by focusing on membership checking.
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 provides context about KEV entries being actively exploited and requiring urgent patching, implying when this tool is useful. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention of alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses key traits: no API key needed, returns CVEs with CVSS, EPSS, and KEV status. No behavioral traits are hidden or misleading.
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, no fluff. The first sentence states the purpose, the second adds key features. Every word earns its place.
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 simple list tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains return values (CVSS, EPSS, KEV status). Missing pagination or error details, but sufficient given low complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds context for the 'product' parameter with examples and hints at the 'is_kev' filter by mentioning KEV status. It enhances understanding beyond the schema.
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 finds CVEs for a product or vendor via Shodan CVEDB, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning no API key and providing specific output fields.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies ease of use ('No API key required') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like shodan_cve or cve_by_product, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description explains the tool's behavior well: it shows reachability and API key configuration for 11 sources, with no side effects mentioned.
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?
The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by details, with 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?
Given no parameters or output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does—listing sources, their availability, and API key status—without gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds no param info, which is acceptable; baseline for 0 params is 4.
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 lists all vulnerability data sources and their availability, distinguishing it from sibling tools that query specific sources or perform other operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for checking source availability but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![cve-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/badchars/cve-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/badchars/cve-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![cve-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/badchars/cve-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/badchars/cve-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/badchars/cve-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server